# General plan documents — minneapolis-minnesota

Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (`<!-- page N -->`) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading.

**Contains 1 document.**
OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: combined. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-08-09.

---

## Complete Plan — Minneapolis 2040 with Appendices

- Source: https://minneapolis2040.com/media/2029/pdf_minneapolis2040_updated-nov-2025.pdf
- Pages: 1257
- Covers: circulation, combined, conservation, ej, housing, land_use, noise, open_space, safety
- **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source.

<!-- page 1 -->
minneapolis | **2040**

**Minneapolis 2040 — The City’s Comprehensive Plan**

# Done right, growth can help our city become a healthy, sustainable, and thriving place for all.

<<FIGURE>>

Adopted by the Minneapolis City Council on October 25, 2019
Effective January 1, 2020

<!-- page 2 -->
# Table of Contents

## Cover .................................... 1

## Table of Contents ......................... 2

## Plan Overview ............................ 5

## 2040 Goals ............................... 7
Eliminate Disparities ............................ 8
More Residents and Jobs ......................... 14
Affordable and Accessible Housing .................. 19
Living-Wage Jobs ............................... 23
Healthy, Safe, and Connected People ................ 26
High-Quality Physical Environment .................. 30
History and Culture ............................. 32
Creative, Cultural, and Natural Amenities ............ 34
Complete Neighborhoods ......................... 37
Climate Change Resilience ........................ 40
Clean Environment: ............................. 44
Healthy, Sustainable, and Diverse Economy ........... 47
Proactive, Accessible, and Sustainable Government ... 50
Equitable Civic Participation System ................ 52

## 2040 Topics ............................. 54
Land Use & Built Form ........................... 55
Transportation ................................. 80
Housing ....................................... 82
Economic Competitiveness ........................ 86
Environmental Systems ........................... 90
Public Health .................................. 92
Heritage Preservation ........................... 94
Arts and Culture ............................... 96
Parks and Open Space ........................... 98
Public Services and Facilities ..................... 100
Technology and Innovation ....................... 102

## Plan Policies ............................ 104
1. Access to Housing ............................ 105
2. Access to Employment ......................... 108
3. Production and Processing ..................... 110
4. Access to Commercial Goods and Services ......... 113
5. Visual Quality of New Development ............... 116
6. Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design ....... 118
7. Public Realm ................................ 122
8. Public Safety Through Environmental Design ........ 124
9. Open Spaces in New Development ................. 127
10. Street Grid ................................ 128
11. Skyways ................................... 130
12. Lighting ................................... 132
13. Landscaping ................................ 134
14. Tree Canopy and Urban Forest .................. 136
15. Transportation and Equity ..................... 137
16. Environmental Impacts of Transportation .......... 138
17. Complete Streets ............................ 140
18. Pedestrians ................................ 142
19. Bicycling .................................. 144
20. Transit .................................... 145
21. Freight .................................... 147
22. Downtown Transportation ...................... 148
23. Coordinated Development Strategy ............... 149
24. Shared Mobility ............................. 151

<<FIGURE>>

**The Minneapolis 2040 Plan was developed by the City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development.** Should you require a reasonable accommodation in order to fully participate, or information in an alternative format, please contact 612-673-3000. Para asistencia 612-673-2700 - Rau kev pab 612-673-2800 - Hadii aad Caawimaad u baahantahay 612-673-3500.

**For more information, contact:**
Department of Community Planning and Economic Development

105 Fifth Avenue South, Ste 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401

(612) 673-3000
2040@minneapolismn.gov

<!-- page 3 -->
25. Innovations in Transportation and Infrastructure . . 152
26. Vision Zero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
27. Transportation Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
28. MSP Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
29. Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts . . .156
30. Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis’ Arts and Culture .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
31. Artists and Creative Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
32. Arts and Culture in Community Development . . . . . 160
33. Affordable Housing Production and Preservation . . 162
34. Cultural Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
35. Innovative Housing Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
36. Innovative Housing Strategies and Data-Driven
Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
37. Mixed Income Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
38. Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers . . 169
39. Fair Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
40. Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
41. Tenant Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
42. Expand Homeownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
43. Housing Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
44. Comprehensive Investments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
45. Leverage Housing Programs to Benefit Community 179
46. Healthy Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
47. Housing Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
48. Freeway Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
49. Educational and Economic Access. . . . . . . . . . . . 184
50. Access to Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
51. Healthy Pre-K Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
52. Human Capital and a Trained Workforce . . . . . . . . 188
53. Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
54. Supporting Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
55. Business Innovation and Expansion. . . . . . . . . . . . 192
56. Supporting Small Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
57. Cluster Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
58. Business Districts and Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
59. Downtown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
60. Intrinsic Value of Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
61. Environmental Justice and Green Zones . . . . . . . . . 199
62. Contaminated Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
63. Food Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

64. Food Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
65. Urban Agriculture and Food Production . . . . . . . . . 206
66. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
67. Climate Resilient Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
68. Energy Efficient and Sustainable Buildings . . . . . . 210
69. Renewable and Carbon-Free Energy . . . . . . . . . . 212
70. Ecology and Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
71. Soil Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
72. Sustainable Water System Management. . . . . . . . . 217
73. Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
74. Integration of Water Management into Development . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
75. Waste Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
76. New Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
77. Park Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
78. Park Design and Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
79. Healthy Youth Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
80. Development Near METRO Stations. . . . . . . . . . . 228
81. Social Connectedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
82. Aging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
83. People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
84. Public Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
85. Access to Health, Social and Emergency Service . . 235
86. Healthy Food in Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
87. Northside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
88. Public Services Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
89. Technology in the City Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
90. Technology in the Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
91. Heritage Preservation Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
92. Identify and Evaluate Historic Resources. . . . . . . . 243
93. Stewarding Historic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
94. Heritage Preservation Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
95. Heritage Preservation Financial Incentives . . . . . . . 248
96. Cultural Heritage and Preservation Recognition . . 249
97. Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
98. Innovation Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
99. University District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
100. Place-based Neighborhood Engagement . . . . . . 255

# Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

<!-- page 4 -->
# Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

# Small Area Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

# Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

Appendix A - Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan . . I

Appendix B - Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II

Appendix C - Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III

Appendix D - Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV

Appendix E - Resources & Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

Appendix F - Water Resources Management Plan . . . . . . . VI

Appendix G - Review & Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

Appendix H - Parks & Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII

Appendix I - Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX

Appendix J - Comprehensive Plan Amendments . . . . . . . . X

<!-- page 5 -->
# Plan Overview

Minneapolis is growing, and will continue to grow. Done right, this new growth can help our city become a healthy, sustainable, and thriving place for everyone.

Minneapolis 2040 is a Comprehensive Plan that shapes how the city will grow and change. The plan covers topics such as housing, job access, the design of new buildings, and how we use our streets.

<!-- page 6 -->
# Plan Overview

The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires municipalities in the Twin Cities area to provide the Metropolitan Council with an updated Comprehensive Plan every ten years. The Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s regional development guide, Thrive MSP 2040, that sets the direction for the region’s growth and development. Local communities are served by regional systems planned by the Metropolitan Council, including transportation, wastewater collection and treatment, and regional parks.

During more than two years of engagement, the people of Minneapolis shared their vision and hopes for the future of our city. A main theme voiced was that as the city grows, everyone must benefit from that growth. Historically, not everyone has. This plan is one opportunity to undo barriers and overcome inequities created by a history of policies in our city that have prevented equitable access to housing, jobs, and investments.

The plan reflects the result of more than two years of engagement with the people of Minneapolis, including over 100 meetings and conversations with thousands of residents, business owners, and others. Public feedback directly helped to establish priorities and inform the content of the plan. From March 22 through July 22, 2018, the City engaged with the public to discuss a first draft of the plan and to encourage review and feedback. Following the close of the public comment period on July 22, City staff made revisions to the plan based on public feedback, and presented a final draft to the City Planning Commission and City Council in Fall 2018. For more details about the process see the Planning Process section.

On December 7, 2018, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing staff to transmit the plan to the Metropolitan Council for their review by December 31, 2018. While Minneapolis 2040 is intended to meet the requirements of state statute and the Metropolitan Council, the plan also has particular significance for Minneapolis in a time of population and employment growth. The City will use this plan to guide decision-making that affects the long-term future of our city as it relates to the built, natural, and economic environment.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 7 -->
# 2040 Goals

The Minneapolis 2040 goals are intended to state the plan’s intent as clearly as possible, so that we as a city know what we are working to accomplish through the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

Using feedback from the public at the beginning of the planning process, the City Council adopted these goals to provide direction to staff in the development of draft Comprehensive Plan policies that guide the future of the city. Every policy in Minneapolis 2040 is intended to contribute to achieving one or more of the goals.

<!-- page 8 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Eliminate Disparities

Photo: Kids learning at the Bakken Museum in Minneapolis (Photo by Bakken Museum, via flickr. com)

**Goal 1: In 2040, Minneapolis will see all communities fully thrive regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, country of origin, religion, or zip code having eliminated deep-rooted disparities in wealth, opportunity, housing, safety, and health.**

According to a report issued by the Economic Policy Institute in 2010, Minneapolis led the nation in having the widest unemployment disparity between African-American and white residents. This remains true in 2018. And disparities also exist in nearly every other measurable social aspect, including of economic, housing, safety and health outcomes, between people of color and indigenous people compared with white people.

<!-- page 9 -->
# 2040 Goals: Eliminate Disparities

Take, for example, the income disparity: White non-Hispanic residents in Minneapolis make approximately three times the income of black and American Indian residents; the median income in 2016 for white non-Hispanics was approximately $65,000, while the median incomes for blacks and American Indians were $20,871 and $22,476, respectively. And since 2000, white non-Hispanic and Asian households have seen increases in median income while black and American Indian households have experienced an approximately 40 percent reduction in median income **(Figure G1.1)**.

<<FIGURE>>

This disparity in incomes can be seen in the poverty rate **(Figure G1.2)**, which is nearly four times as high for blacks (nearly 45 percent) as for white non-Hispanics (approximately 12 percent). The poverty rate for American Indians is 33 percent and for Hispanics nearly 27 percent. And the unemployment rate in Minneapolis for blacks (17 percent) and American Indians (14 percent) is approximately three times higher than it is for white non-Hispanics (less than 5 percent).

<<FIGURE>>

The employment and income disparities are predictable outcomes of educational disparities. Analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows higher rates of unemployment for people with lower levels of education. People with an associate’s or bachelor’s degree have unemployment rates of up to a percentage point less that the labor force in general. In Minneapolis, 83 percent of white non-Hispanics have more than a high school education, compared with 47 percent of black people and 45 percent of American Indians **(Figure G1.3)**. Only 32 percent of Hispanics have more than a high school education. Educational disparities begin at birth and grow wider over time, suggesting that the best opportunity to close or even prevent these achievement gaps is by focusing investment toward the earliest stages of life.

<!-- page 10 -->
# 2040 Goals: Eliminate Disparities

<<FIGURE>>

Income significantly impacts housing access, and for a growing number of residents, especially people of color, incomes are not keeping up with rising housing costs. This results in fewer housing units in fewer neighborhoods that are affordable. For households of color that are renting this means there are few, if any, housing units that are affordable. The loss of affordable housing units and the changes in household income have resulted in a greater number of cost-burdened households – households in which more than 30 percent of household income goes toward housing. Thirty-seven percent of all households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, but, similar to the change in household incomes, this is not equal across racial groups. Over 50 percent of black households and over 45 percent of American Indian and Hispanic households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, whereas one in three white households are cost-burdened.

Homeownership has given generations of Minneapolitans the opportunity for housing stability and wealth development, but inequities are apparent in this realm as well (Figure G1.4). There is a 36 percentage point gap between households of color that own their home versus white households. Over 59 percent of white non-Hispanic households own their home, while less than 21 percent of African-American and American Indian households own their home. Just under 25 percent of Hispanic households own their home.

<<FIGURE>>

These disparities are rooted in overt and institutionalized racism that has shaped the opportunities available to multiple generations of Minneapolis residents. For example, an examination of federal housing policy starting in the 1930s reveals racially discriminatory housing practices. Following the Great Depression, in an effort to increase housing stability, improve the economy and help residents retain their homes, the federal government began to underwrite and back home mortgages, which

<!-- page 11 -->
# 2040 Goals: Eliminate Disparities

lengthened the life of the loans and lowered the amount of down payment amount needed to purchase a home.

To reduce risk, the government adopted loan underwriting standards that steered the direction of private investment in housing. This practice prevented access to mortgages in areas with Jews, African-Americans and other minorities, as well as in the more densely populated and mixed-use parts of the city. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) underwriting manual made the case for racially restrictive covenants, using language that described people of color as undesirable neighbors in the same vein as nuisances such as odor and high traffic: “The more important among the adverse influential factors are the ingress of undesirable racial or nationality groups; infiltration of business or commercial uses of properties; the presence of smoke, odors, fog, heavy trafficked streets and railroads.”

These policies and regulations left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its residents. Areas of Minneapolis with higher densities and a mix of land uses experienced disinvestment, in part because banks did not lend in those areas. On the outskirts of the city, a post-Depression development pattern emerged with little variation in housing types and density and with few areas for commercial development. Today, the zoning map in these areas remains largely unchanged from the era of intentional racial segregation.

The physical patterns in the way Minneapolis has developed, and will develop, shapes the health and safety outcomes of its residents. The World Health Organization describes social determinants of health as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities.” Inequities related to opportunities, conditions, policies and practices don’t impact just individuals in isolation. Instead, entire generations are impacted by these inequities – especially those rooted in race, place and income – in healthy development and lifestyle. The impact can be seen, for example, in infant mortality (Figure G1.5) and premature death rates (Figure

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 12 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**G1.6).** In Minneapolis, American Indians have premature death rates that are more than four times higher than those of whites, and the premature death rate for blacks is twice the rate for whites. The disparity for infant mortality is similar: American Indians have infant mortality rates four times higher than those of whites, while blacks experience infant mortality at nearly three times the rate of whites. The City must work to close these and other disparities in health outcomes, as well as those that exist in education, employment, income and housing outcomes.

To achieve the goal of eliminate disparities, the City of Minneapolis will work to undo the legacy that remains from racially discriminatory housing policies by increasing access to opportunity through a greater diversity of housing types, especially in areas that lack housing options as a result of discriminatory housing policy. The City will invest in education, skills training, small business support and other support systems to help residents access opportunities to gain and retain well-paying employment that allows them to grow as individuals. Additionally, the City will lead by example, hiring and training a diverse workforce, as well as promoting these practices through its contracts, vendors and other procurement and partnership opportunities.

Achieving this goal will mean directing City and other resources – dollars for transit, for affordable housing and business development, for education, and for health and safety programs – to the geographic areas most in need, while providing economic and housing opportunities for all Minneapolis residents. Accomplishing this will require tracking progress and outcomes; and it will require engaging with the community, especially with communities of color, around City actions.

<!-- page 13 -->
# Eliminate Disparities Policies:

39 policies relate to Goal 1: Eliminate Disparities.
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

**Policy 49: “Educational and Economic Access” on page 184**

**Policy 50: “Access to Technology” on page 186**

**Policy 51: “Healthy Pre-K Development” on page 187**

**Policy 52: “Human Capital and a Trained Workforce” on page 188**

**Policy 55: “Business Innovation and Expansion” on page 192**

**Policy 56: “Supporting Small Businesses” on page 193**

**Policy 2: “Access to Employment” on page 108**

**Policy 3: “Production and Processing” on page 110**

**Policy 58: “Business Districts and Corridors” on page 196**

**Policy 30: “Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis’ Arts and Culture” on page 158**

**Policy 31: “Artists and Creative Workers” on page 159**

**Policy 1: “Access to Housing” on page 105**

**Policy 33: “Affordable Housing Production and Preservation” on page 162**

**Policy 37: “Mixed Income Housing” on page 168**

**Policy 38: “Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers” on page 169**

**Policy 39: “Fair Housing” on page 170**

**Policy 40: “Homelessness” on page 171**

**Policy 41: “Tenant Protections” on page 173**

**Policy 42: “Expand Homeownership” on page 174**

**Policy 43: “Housing Displacement” on page 176**

**Policy 44: “Comprehensive Investments” on page 178**

**Policy 23: “Coordinated Development Strategy” on page 149**

**Policy 45: “Leverage Housing Programs to Benefit Community” on page 179**

**Policy 46: “Healthy Housing” on page 180**

**Policy 15: “Transportation and Equity” on page 137**

**Policy 16: “Environmental Impacts of Transportation” on page 138**

**Policy 61: “Environmental Justice and Green Zones” on page 199**

**Policy 66: “Air Quality” on page 207**

**Policy 62: “Contaminated Sites” on page 201**

**Policy 81: “Social Connectedness” on page 230**

**Policy 85: “Access to Health, Social and Emergency Service” on page 235**

**Policy 63: “Food Access” on page 202**

**Policy 86: “Healthy Food in Institutions” on page 236**

**Policy 78: “Park Design and Programming” on page 226**

**Policy 34: “Cultural Districts” on page 164**

**Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182**

**Policy 87: “Northside” on page 237**

**Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252**

**Policy 100: “Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255**

<!-- page 14 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# More Residents and Jobs

*Photo: Buses and transit users on Marquette Avenue in downtown Minneapolis (Photo by Metro Transit)*

### Goal 2. In 2040, Minneapolis will have more residents and jobs, and all people will equitably benefit from that growth.

The population of Minneapolis peaked at almost 522,000 in 1950 (**Figure G2.1**). At its height, this population supported a bustling streetcar network, convenient neighborhood retail nodes and other services whose traces are still felt in the city. But by 1990, many of these advantages of urban living had faded away, and Minneapolis’ population dipped to a low of 368,000. The downturn in manufacturing, discriminatory housing and lending practices, suburban growth and flight, less centralized employment centers and more encouraged this loss of population, as well as exacerbated patterns of inequity that are still apparent today.

<!-- page 15 -->
# 2040 Goals: More Residents and Jobs

<<FIGURE>>

However, since 2000 Minneapolis has experienced growth that has increased demand for housing. This has prompted the creation of new housing units to help meet the needs of the dynamically changing population, new grocery stores to fulfill basic needs, renewed vitality in commercial areas, new and expanded industries, new and recapitalized parks and open spaces, and increased frequency, speed and reach of transit.

Yet this growth has not been without its challenges. The recent demand for urban living has outstripped the supply of housing available in many areas of the city, which has escalated housing prices at rates faster than wages for many people in the city. As a result, the city has seen an increase in cost-burdened households (households where more than 30 percent of household income goes toward housing) and residents who have been priced out of their neighborhoods.

Overall, 37 percent of all households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, but this is not equal across racial groups (Figure G2.2). Over 50 percent of black and American Indian households, and over 45 percent Hispanic households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, whereas one in three white households are cost-burdened. For a growing number of people, especially people of color, incomes are not keeping up with rising housing costs, resulting in fewer housing units in fewer neighborhoods that are affordable, especially for renters.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 16 -->
# 2040 Goals: More Residents and Jobs

Since 2000, overall household incomes in Minneapolis have slightly decreased – but not equally across racial groups. White non-Hispanic and Asian households have seen increases in household income since 2000, while black households have experienced an approximately 40 percent decrease in income (**Figure G2.3**).

<<FIGURE>>

Businesses also face the stresses of rising rents and displacement. As rents rise, small retail and service businesses are often the most impacted. These small businesses tend to embody neighborhood and cultural identity, and their loss has repercussions beyond just the loss of jobs and retail or service establishments.

One of the primary factors influencing a resident's ability to afford housing is employment, and in the past 15 years Minneapolis has seen growth in many industries, resulting in refreshed economic vitality and new jobs. Educational disparities hinder the ability of residents of color to prepare for and participate in the continually evolving economy. In Minneapolis less than half of black, American Indian and Hispanic residents have more than a high school education, compared with 83 percent of white non-Hispanic residents (**Figure G2.4**). These educational disparities create barriers to finding employment that pays a living wage.

<<FIGURE>>

One promising avenue is production and processing businesses, which provide economic opportunities for those who may lack higher levels of education by offering living wages compared with the retail, accommodation and food service industries. Production and processing businesses in the region have average monthly starting wages for workers of color that are twice as high as retail businesses and nearly two-and-a-half times as high as accommodation and food service businesses.

A crucial element of residents’ ability to access employment and of a vibrant economy generally is public transit. While transit has improved in Minneapolis, it is still

<!-- page 17 -->
far behind the level of transit accessibility and mobility the city’s residents once enjoyed as they accessed jobs, services and housing.

Private investment also has helped stimulate the city’s economy, but like so much else it has not been equal across the city. While some areas have benefited from new market-led investments, other areas have seen very little. Encouraging a more equitable distribution of private investment, continuing to expand and improve the transit system, and working to increase options for affordable housing and living-wage jobs are necessary to ensure that the benefits of growth are experienced by all residents.

To achieve the goal equitably benefiting from that growth, the City of Minneapolis will create new opportunities for people to live throughout the city by allowing and encouraging the development of new multifamily housing of various sizes and affordability levels, including in areas that today contain primarily single family homes. Along with creating these new opportunities, the City will take proactive steps to minimize residential displacement, including by preserving naturally occurring affordable housing and offering homeownership support.

The City will also support the growth of existing businesses and the creation of new businesses, while helping prepare Minneapolis residents for the jobs that result. This includes maintaining and expanding areas of the city for production, processing and distribution of products, services and ideas.

Achieving the above will require the City to support, build and maintain a multimodal transportation system that promotes growth in a sustainable manner. And it will require the City to coordinate the development of housing, businesses and infrastructure in geographic areas where a district-wide approach has the greatest opportunity to achieve growth that can benefit everyone.

# <<FIGURE>> More Residents and Jobs Policies:

**26 policies relate to Goal 2: More Residents and Jobs.** Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 1: “Access to Housing” on page 105**
---
**Policy 33: “Affordable Housing Production and Preservation” on page 162**
---
**Policy 35: “Innovative Housing Types” on page 165**
---
**Policy 36: “Innovative Housing Strategies and Data-Driven Decisions” on page 166**
---
**Policy 37: “Mixed Income Housing” on page 168**
---
**Policy 43: “Housing Displacement” on page 176**
---
**Policy 38: “Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers” on page 169**
---
**Policy 80: “Development Near METRO Stations” on page 228**
---
**Policy 23: “Coordinated Development Strategy” on page 149**
---
**Policy 2: “Access to Employment” on page 108**
---
**Policy 3: “Production and Processing” on page 110**
---
**Policy 49: “Educational and Economic Access” on page 184**
---
**Policy 51: “Healthy Pre-K Development” on page 187**
---
**Policy 52: “Human Capital and a Trained Workforce” on page 188**
---
**Policy 54: “Supporting Economic Growth” on page 191**
---
**Policy 55: “Business Innovation and Expansion” on page 192]**
---
**Policy 56: “Supporting Small Businesses” on page 193**
---
**Policy 57: “Cluster Strategy” on page 195**
---
**Policy 90: “Technology in the Economy” on page 241**
---

<!-- page 18 -->
# 2040 Goals: More Residents and Jobs

***

**Policy 58: ["Business Districts and Corridors" on page 196](javascript:void\(0\))**

***

**Policy 59: ["Downtown" on page 197](javascript:void\(0\))**

***

**Policy 62: ["Contaminated Sites" on page 201](javascript:void\(0\))**

***

**Policy 76: ["New Parks" on page 224](javascript:void\(0\))**

***

**Policy 20: ["Transit" on page 145](javascript:void\(0\))**

***

**Policy 48: ["Freeway Remediation" on page 182](javascript:void\(0\))**

***

**Policy 98: ["Innovation Districts" on page 252](javascript:void\(0\))**

***

<!-- page 19 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Affordable and Accessible Housing

*Photo: Backyard gathering*
*(Photo by Tela Chhe, via flickr.com)*

### Goal 3. In 2040, all Minneapolis residents will be able to afford and access quality housing throughout the city.

Minneapolis is a magnet city attracting more residents and businesses each year. As a city Minneapolis is facing challenges as it grows, including a shortage of housing units that residents can afford, a rise in the number and percentage of cost-burdened households – especially among renters, and the presence of zoning regulations that have favored single-family housing at the expense of housing access since the era of segregation.

#### Housing Residents Can Afford
The Metropolitan Council estimates that between 2010 and 2016 the city added over 12,000 housing units and more than 37,000 residents. With this growth comes increased demand for housing and an associated increase in housing costs and rents. As a result, housing units that were once

<!-- page 20 -->
affordable no longer are, and less housing is available for low-income residents of Minneapolis.

Since 2000, Minneapolis has lost roughly 15,000 housing units that are considered affordable for those earning 50% percent of the area median income ($31,650 for one person/ $45,000 for a family of four ).. These units generally still exist, but they cost more to own or rent, making them unaffordable to this demographic.

In 2017, for the 13-county metropolitan region, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculated a median family income of $90,400. Based on this figure, 50% percent of the area median income for a single-person household is $31,650 annually (or an hourly wage of $15.22 for a standard workweek and year), and for a family of four it's $45,200 annually (or a household hourly wage of $21.73 for a standard workweek and year). **(Figure G3.1).**

### Cost-Burden Housholds
The majority of Minneapolis residents are renters and renter households are growing at a faster rate than owner households. When broken down by number of households, the two largest groups of residents in the city are renters earning less than 30% of AMI, ($28,300 per year) and homeowners earning more than 100% of AMI ($94,300 per year). Most people of color in the city are renters while the majority of the city's white residents are homeowners.

Since 2000 a growing number of residents, especially residents of color and indigenous people, have seen a decrease in household income preventing them from keeping up with rising housing costs. A decrease in the number of affordable housing units coupled with decreasing incomes greatly limits the ability of residents to find the housing they need throughout the city.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 21 -->
Throughout this document there are many references to *Affordable Housing*. *Affordable Housing* is rental housing with rent and income restrictions (typically 60% of Area Median Income or below) or housing for homeownership with income restrictions (typically less than 80 percent of Area Median Income) as governed by local, state, and federal housing assistance programs. In comparison to *Housing Affordability*, which is access to homeownership or rental options based on housing price relative to household income. The loss of affordable housing units and changes in household income have resulted in a greater number of cost-burdened households – households in which more than 30 percent of household income goes toward mortgage or rental payments. Forty-nine percent of all households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, but, this is not equal across racial groups. Over 50 percent of black households and over 45 percent of American Indian and Hispanic households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, whereas 1 in 3 white households are cost-burdened. **(Figure G3.2).**

### Impact of Zoning

Racial disparities persist in all aspects of housing. Until the 1960s, zoning regulations, racially discriminatory housing practices, and federal housing policies worked together to determine who could live in single-family houses in “desirable” neighborhoods. These determinations were based on race and have shaped the opportunities granted to multiple generations of Minneapolis residents. **(Figure G3.3).**

Following the Great Depression in 1934, guidance from the federal government steered where private investment in housing could occur, this direction was called redlining. This practice denied mortgages in areas where Jews, African-Americans, and other minorities lived, as well as in the more densely populated and mixed-use parts of the city. Related guidance in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) underwriting manuals encouraged the segregation of land uses, also known as zoning, in order to reduce the financial risk of backing single family home loans near land uses deemed undesirable, such as factories and even

<<FIGURE>>

multifamily housing. This guidance, from 1934, reinforced the approach that Minneapolis and other cities in the United States began years earlier through the introduction of zoning ordinances.

While the FHA promoted zoning as an effective tool for assuring a “homogenous and harmonious neighborhood,” the FHA did not think zoning was enough to accomplish the segregation of the races as a means of protecting property values. The FHA underwriting manual also made the case for racially restrictive covenants, using language that described people of color as undesirable neighbors in the same vein as nuisances such as odors and high traffic. These practices allowed banks to deny mortgages and property owners to prevent the sale of a home based on race. As a result, areas of Minneapolis with higher densities and a mix of land uses experienced disinvestment, in part because banks did not lend in those areas.

<!-- page 22 -->
These policies and regulations shaped the physical characteristics of Minneapolis and the financial status of its residents. Although racially segregated housing is no longer enforced in these “desirable” neighborhoods the zoning map remains largely unchanged from an era in which discrimination was legal, and still contributes to disparities communities of color and indigenous people experience today such as, access to commercial goods and services, quality housing, and public transportation.

To address these issues, the City of Minneapolis will expand opportunities to increase the housing supply in a way that meets changing needs and desires. This means allowing more housing options, especially in areas that currently lack housing choice and in areas with access to frequent and fast transit, employment, and goods and services. It also means creating and expanding new resources and tools to produce and preserve affordable housing, to minimize the displacement of existing residents, and to ensure housing is maintained to promote health and safety. The City will also need to invest in its residents, especially residents of color and indigenous residents, to ensure that it identifies and removes barriers to accessing and retaining housing.

# <<FIGURE>> Affordable and Accessible Housing Policies:

**22 policies relate to Goal 3: Affordable and Accessible Housing.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 1: “Access to Housing” on page 105**
---
**Policy 33: “Affordable Housing Production and Preservation” on page 162**
---
**Policy 35: “Innovative Housing Types” on page 165**
---
**Policy 36: “Innovative Housing Strategies and Data-Driven Decisions” on page 166**
---
**Policy 37: “Mixed Income Housing” on page 168**
---
**Policy 38: “Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers” on page 169**
---
**Policy 80: “Development Near METRO Stations” on page 228**
---
**Policy 39: “Fair Housing” on page 170**
---
**Policy 40: “Homelessness” on page 171**
---
**Policy 41: “Tenant Protections” on page 173**
---
**Policy 42: “Expand Homeownership” on page 174**
---
**Policy 43: “Housing Displacement” on page 176**
---
**Policy 44: “Comprehensive Investments” on page 178**
---
**Policy 23: “Coordinated Development Strategy” on page 149**
---
**Policy 45: “Leverage Housing Programs to Benefit Community” on page 179**
---
**Policy 46: “Healthy Housing” on page 180**
---
**Policy 47: “Housing Quality” on page 181**
---
**Policy 34: “Cultural Districts” on page 164**
---
**Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182**
---
**Policy 87: “Northside” on page 237**
---
**Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252**
---
**Policy 99: “University District” on page 253**
---

<!-- page 23 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Living-Wage Jobs

Photo: Construction workers on site

### Goal 4. In 2040, all Minneapolis residents will have the training and skills necessary to participate in the economy and will have access to a living-wage job.

The Twin Cities region is predicted to have a shortfall of more than 114,000 workers by 2020. A knowledge-based economy, heightened competition in globalized markets, and the quickening pace of change make continual innovation, commercialization, and business creation imperative for economic success. To ensure the growth of the region's and the city's economy, all businesses must have access to employees who can easily fill growing job demand, and small business owners and entrepreneurs need access to resources that help them start and grow their businesses.

It is also necessary to promote a city in which residents from all backgrounds have opportunities to gain and retain

<!-- page 24 -->
well-paying employment and a city where ethnic diversity in all fields of entrepreneurship is supported and promoted. This will help amend past inequities, as people of color and indigenous people historically have not had equal access to education, employment and entrepreneurial resources. These barriers to access start in youth and continue throughout a lifetime. They range from not having a parent or adult present during childhood to not having access to preschool education, and from educational inequities in schools to employment inequities in job training and access.

Educational inequities in Minneapolis are apparent in the significant disparities that exist in high school graduation. Approximately 22 percent of American Indian students graduate, slightly over 34 percent of Hispanic students graduate, and 36 percent of black students graduate. Thirty-eight percent of all low-income students, regardless of race, graduate. It is foolish to ignore the fact that these trends show up long before graduation; disparities begin at birth and grow wider over time. Income-based achievement gaps open up between the ages of 0 and 5 and stay stable or shrink during K-12, while race-based gaps are very apparent at age 5 and grow modestly at later ages. This suggests that the best opportunity to close or even prevent these achievement gaps is by focusing investment toward the earliest stages of life.

Doing this can help close not only the educational gap, but also the employment gap, as educational disparities routinely become barriers to finding employment in the changing economy and are evident in unemployment and poverty rates. In Minneapolis, the unemployment rate for blacks and American Indians is approximately three times higher than it is for white non-Hispanics. The unemployment rate is 17 percent for blacks and 14 percent for American Indians, compared with less than 5 percent for white non-Hispanics **(Figure G4.1)**.

<<FIGURE>>

This relationship between education and employment levels is borne out by national level analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows higher rates of unemployment for people with lower levels of education. People with an associate’s or bachelor’s degree have unemployment rates of up to a percentage point less that the median unemployment rate, while those with a high school degree have unemployment rates over a percentage point higher than the median unemployment rate. In Minneapolis, 83 percent of white non-Hispanics have more than a high school education, compared with 47 percent of black people and 45 percent of American Indians. Only 32 percent of Hispanics have more than a high school education **(Figure G4.2)**.

<!-- page 25 -->
<<FIGURE>>

To achieve the goal of ensuring residents access to a living-wage job, the City of Minneapolis will invest in education and skills training so residents, especially low-income residents, residents of color and indigenous residents, have opportunities to prepare for and participate in Minneapolis’ growing economy. This also means increasing job readiness by investing in employment training, placement and education for both youth and adults; as well as serving as a model employer by increasing the diversity of the City’s workforce. The City will support business innovation and invest in capacity building for entrepreneurs and small businesses. The City will support businesses in providing fair wages and worker protections.

# Living-Wage Jobs Policies:

**18 policies relate to Goal 4: Living-Wage Jobs.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

**Policy 49: ["Educational and Economic Access" on page 184](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/educational-and-economic-access/)**

**Policy 50: ["Access to Technology" on page 186](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/access-to-technology/)**

**Policy 51: ["Healthy Pre-K Development" on page 187](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/healthy-pre-k-development/)**

**Policy 52: ["Human Capital and a Trained Workforce" on page 188](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/human-capital-and-a-trained-workforce/)**

**Policy 55: ["Business Innovation and Expansion" on page 192](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/business-innovation-and-expansion/)**

**Policy 56: ["Supporting Small Businesses" on page 193](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/supporting-small-businesses/)**

**Policy 57: ["Cluster Strategy" on page 195](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/cluster-strategy/)**

**Policy 90: ["Technology in the Economy" on page 241](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/technology-in-the-economy/)**

**Policy 2: ["Access to Employment" on page 108](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/access-to-employment/)**

**Policy 3: ["Production and Processing" on page 110](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/production-and-processing/)**

**Policy 58: ["Business Districts and Corridors" on page 196](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/business-districts-and-corridors/)**

**Policy 20: ["Transit" on page 145](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/transit/)**

**Policy 22: ["Downtown Transportation" on page 148](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/downtown-transportation/)**

**Policy 31: ["Artists and Creative Workers" on page 159](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/artists-and-creative-workers/)**

**Policy 64: ["Food Businesses" on page 204](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/food-businesses/)**

**Policy 34: ["Cultural Districts" on page 164](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/cultural-districts/)**

**Policy 87: ["Northside" on page 237](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/northside/)**

**Policy 98: ["Innovation Districts" on page 252](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/innovation-districts/)**

<!-- page 26 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Healthy, Safe, and Connected People

Photo: Open Streets on Nicollet Avenue (Photo by Fibonacci Blue, via flickr. com).

### Goal 5. In 2040, the people of Minneapolis will be socially connected, healthy, and safe.

The physical patterns in the way Minneapolis has developed, and will develop, shapes the health and safety outcomes of its residents. The World Health Organization describes social determinants of health as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities.” Inequities related to opportunities, conditions, policies and practices don’t impact just individuals in isolation. Instead, entire generations are impacted by these inequities – especially those rooted in race, place and income – in healthy development and lifestyle.

<!-- page 27 -->
Minneapolis is among the areas of the nation with the largest disparities between people of color and indigenous peoples and white people in level of education, employment and poverty rates. White non-Hispanic residents in Minneapolis make approximately three times the income of black and American Indian residents; the median income in 2016 for white non-Hispanics was approximately $65,000, while the median incomes for blacks and American Indians were $20,871 and $22,476, respectively. And since 2000, white non-Hispanic and Asian households have seen increases in median income, while black and American Indian households have experienced an approximately 40 percent reduction in median income **(Figure G5.1)**.

Inequities in social and economic factors are key contributors to health disparities; ultimately, these gaps need to close if equity in health outcomes is to advance. Social and economic disparities underpin health disparities from premature death rates to access to healthy food and from healthy youth development to housing stability. In Minneapolis, American Indians have premature death rates that are more than four times higher than those of whites, and the premature death rate for blacks is twice the rate for whites **(Figure G5.2)**.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 28 -->
# 2040 Goals: Healthy, Safe, and Connected People

<<FIGURE>>

The disparity for infant mortality is similar: American Indians have infant mortality rates four times higher than those of whites, while blacks experience infant mortality at nearly three times the rate of whites **(Figure G5.3)**.

The link between economic and social inequities and health disparities is also clearly evident in the issue of access to healthy food. Insufficient income is one of two primary barriers to healthy food access. (The other is lack of proximity to stores that sell healthy food, which is also affected by income.) Residents living at 185 percent of the federal poverty level (in 2016, the equivalent of household income for a family of four was $44,955, or $21.61 an hour) are more likely to experience food insecurity, which is associated with obesity and inadequate nutrition.

Psychological resiliency can also be impacted by social and economic disparities. For example, a lack of stable and affordable housing can negatively impact community cohesiveness by forcing people to move often in search of housing they can afford. This kind of neighborhood mobility breaks up social networks, impacts school success, and places stresses on families forced to adjust to new environments. The lack of diversity in housing type and size impacts not only affordability (and thus stability), but also options for Minneapolitans who are aging or disabled and need housing alternatives that allow them to stay in their community and remain connected to their social networks.

Social connectivity is incredibly important in creating and retaining the relationships that make our communities stronger and more resilient. Through programs and the design of community spaces, including parks, community and youth centers, new buildings and city streets, Minneapolis can foster environments to increase social connectedness. The design of these spaces can also improve safety and the perception of safety, making people more likely to use the spaces.

A multisector public health approach to public safety that is informed by and responsive to the community will ultimately lead to a city that is safer, stronger, more

<!-- page 29 -->
connected and more resilient. Enforcement is essential to public safety, but it’s only one of other equally essential components that together comprise a holistic approach. In the pursuit of safer communities it is essential to consider not just individual actors, but also the relationships between individuals, the communities in which those relationships exist, and societal factors that influence the climate and conditions of the city. Influential societal factors include conditions, policies and practices that create and sustain disparities.

To achieve the goal of a connected, healthy, and safe people, the City of Minneapolis will ensure healthy outcomes for all Minneapolis residents, including youth and seniors, regardless of where in the city they live and regardless of their income, the City of Minneapolis will continue healthy-living and disease-prevention activities, including the promotion of equitable access to and distribution of healthy food sources.

In addition, the City will support social connectedness through the creation, retention and programming of gathering spaces for people of all ages. This includes ensuring independent living opportunities, meaningful engagement and resources for older Minneapolis residents so they can be a vital part of the fabric of the community, and it includes ensuring people with disabilities and their families are visible, active and valued members of the community. The City will also work to ensure public safety through collaborative multisector, community-inclusive approaches.

# <<FIGURE>> Healthy, Safe, and Connected People Policies:

**28 policies relate to Goal 5: Healthy, Safe, and Connected People.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 81: ["Social Connectedness" on page 230](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/social-connectedness/)**
---
**Policy 82: ["Aging" on page 231](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/aging/)**
---
**Policy 83: ["People with Disabilities" on page 233](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/people-with-disabilities/)**
---
**Policy 51: ["Healthy Pre-K Development" on page 187](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/healthy-pre-k-development/)**
---
**Policy 79: ["Healthy Youth Development" on page 227](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/healthy-youth-development/)**
---
**Policy 61: ["Environmental Justice and Green Zones" on page 199](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/environmental-justice-and-green-zones/)**
---
**Policy 66: ["Air Quality" on page 207](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/air-quality/)**
---
**Policy 62: ["Contaminated Sites" on page 201](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/contaminated-sites/)**
---
**Policy 46: ["Healthy Housing" on page 180](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/healthy-housing/)**
---
**Policy 63: ["Food Access" on page 202](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/food-access/)**
---
**Policy 64: ["Food Businesses" on page 204](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/food-businesses/)**
---
**Policy 86: ["Healthy Food in Institutions" on page 236](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/healthy-food-in-institutions/)**
---
**Policy 65: ["Urban Agriculture and Food Production" on page 206](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/urban-agriculture-and-food-production/)**
---
**Policy 85: ["Access to Health, Social and Emergency Service" on page 235](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/access-to-health-social-and-emergency-services/)**
---
**Policy 84: ["Public Safety" on page 234](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/public-safety/)**
---
**Policy 8: ["Public Safety Through Environmental Design" on page 124](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/public-safety-through-environmental-design/)**
---
**Policy 6: ["Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design" on page 118](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/pedestrian-oriented-building-and-site-design/)**
---
**Policy 9: ["Open Spaces in New Development" on page 127](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/open-spaces-in-new-development/)**
---
**Policy 78: ["Park Design and Programming" on page 226](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/park-design-and-programming/)**
---
**Policy 12: ["Lighting" on page 132](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/lighting/)**
---
**Policy 26: ["Vision Zero" on page 153](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/vision-zero/)**
---
**Policy 18: ["Pedestrians" on page 142](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/pedestrians/)**
---
**Policy 19: ["Bicycling" on page 144](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/bicycling/)**
---
**Policy 34: ["Cultural Districts" on page 164](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/cultural-districts/)**
---
**Policy 48: ["Freeway Remediation" on page 182](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/freeway-remediation/)**
---
**Policy 87: ["Northside" on page 237](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/northside/)**
---
**Policy 98: ["Innovation Districts" on page 252](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/innovation-districts/)**
---
**Policy 100: ["Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/place-based-neighborhood-engagement/)**
---

<!-- page 30 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# High-Quality Physical Environment

Photo: New Nicollet Mall
(Photo by Metro Transit)

## Goal 6. In 2040, Minneapolis will enjoy a high-quality and distinctive physical environment in all parts of the city.

A well-designed physical environment in Minneapolis can facilitate positive human interactions and promote commerce, pedestrian activity, safety, and health. The city achieves this through urban design, which is the process of shaping and locating buildings, parks and open spaces, landscapes, streets, and public art to make up the physical form, function, and feel of a city.

The urban design of Minneapolis influences the city’s quality of life and environment. A well-integrated private and public realm can encourage street-level activity that supports public safety, facilitates foot traffic to support local retail businesses, and forms comfortable and appealing places that naturally become destinations for both Minneapolis residents and visitors from the region and beyond.

<!-- page 31 -->
To achieve the goal of a high-quality physical environment, the City of Minneapolis will promote design for the built environment that is dynamic and durable, reflects the diversity of Minneapolis residents, and contributes to a sense of place and community identity. The City will also proactively improve the public realm, including streets, sidewalks, parks and open spaces between buildings, to ensure that public spaces and private development are thoughtfully connected.

<<FIGURE>>

## High-Quality Physical Environment Policies:

**25 policies relate to Goal 6: High-Quality Physical Environment.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

**Policy 5: ["Visual Quality of New Development" on page 116](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/visual-quality-of-new-development/)**

---
**Policy 6: ["Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design" on page 118](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/pedestrian-oriented-building-and-site-design/)**

---
**Policy 7: ["Public Realm" on page 122](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/public-realm/)**

---
**Policy 80: ["Development Near METRO Stations" on page 228](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/development-near-metro-stations/)**

---
**Policy 8: ["Public Safety Through Environmental Design" on page 124](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/public-safety-through-environmental-design/)**

---
**Policy 9: ["Open Spaces in New Development" on page 127](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/open-spaces-in-new-development/)**

---
**Policy 78: ["Park Design and Programming" on page 226](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/park-design-and-programming/)**

---
**Policy 10: ["Street Grid" on page 128](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/street-grid/)**

---
**Policy 12: ["Lighting" on page 132](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/lighting/)**

---
**Policy 13: ["Landscaping" on page 134](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/landscaping/)**

---
**Policy 14: ["Tree Canopy and Urban Forest" on page 136](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/tree-canopy-and-urban-forest/)**

---
**Policy 74: ["Integration of Water Management into Development" on page 220](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/integration-of-water-management-into-development/)**

---
**Policy 15: ["Transportation and Equity" on page 137](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/transportation-and-equity/)**

---
**Policy 58: ["Business Districts and Corridors" on page 196](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/business-districts-and-corridors/)**

---
**Policy 11: ["Skyways" on page 130](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/skyways/)**

---
**Policy 47: ["Housing Quality" on page 181](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/housing-quality/)**

---
**Policy 60: ["Intrinsic Value of Properties" on page 198](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/intrinsic-value-of-properties/)**

---
**Policy 93: ["Stewarding Historic Properties" on page 245](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/stewarding-historic-properties/)**

---
**Policy 91: ["Heritage Preservation Outreach" on page 242](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/heritage-preservation-outreach/)**

---
**Policy 92: ["Identify and Evaluate Historic Resources" on page 243](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/identify-and-evaluate-historic-resources/)**

---
**Policy 34: ["Cultural Districts" on page 164](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/cultural-districts/)**

---
**Policy 48: ["Freeway Remediation" on page 182](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/freeway-remediation/)**

---
**Policy 97: ["Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways" on page 250](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/preserving-and-enhancing-public-lakes-and-waterways/)**

---
**Policy 98: ["Innovation Districts" on page 252](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/innovation-districts/)**

---
**Policy 100: ["Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255](https://minneapolis2040.com/policies/place-based-neighborhood-engagement/)**

<!-- page 32 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# History and Culture

*Photo: Midtown Global Market (Photo by Fibonacci Blue)*

### Goal 7. In 2040, the physical attributes of Minneapolis will reflect the city’s history and cultures.

Minneapolis is filled with buildings and landscapes that are important to its heritage and integral to defining and framing the character of the city’s place and culture. These properties may be a collection of commercial buildings or industrial buildings, old railroad infrastructure or a set of rowhomes. Some may be local or national historically designated properties, while many are not. The value of some may be more universally recognized – for example, the Foshay Tower; while the value of others may not be as universally recognized – for example, early 20th century commercial buildings along West Broadway. In either case, the properties have intrinsic value in helping define and frame the character of an area and present opportunities to support economic and business development and, more broadly, community development and investment.

<!-- page 33 -->
Minneapolis has been experiencing change since its early settlement and will continue to experience change well into the future. It’s essential to manage this change and evolution so the physical attributes of the city reflect Minneapolis’ history and cultures and all residents have a sense of belonging and access to a cultural anchor. Preservation can not only celebrate who has lived in the city in the past, but also reflect who lives here today. The City can accomplish this only through proactive engagement with residents, business owners, and property owners, especially those from communities of color and indigenous and low-income communities who have not typically participated in heritage preservation activities or other city activities.

To achieve the goal of having physical attributes that reflect its history and culture, the City of Minneapolis will broaden its understanding of important places through engagement with cultural communities, communities of color and indigenous communities. The City will use the feedback from this engagement to help identify and preserve buildings, landscapes and other places important to the city’s heritage. Additionally, the City will recognize and actively promote the intrinsic value of historic places as integral to the city’s evolving environment and will support thriving business districts and corridors that build on cultural assets.

# <<FIGURE>> History and Culture Policies:

**11 policies relate to Goal 7: History and Culture.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 91: ["Heritage Preservation Outreach" on page 242](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 92: ["Identify and Evaluate Historic Resources" on page 243](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 60: ["Intrinsic Value of Properties" on page 198](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 93: ["Stewarding Historic Properties" on page 245](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 94: ["Heritage Preservation Regulation" on page 247](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 95: ["Heritage Preservation Financial Incentives" on page 248](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 96: ["Cultural Heritage and Preservation Recognition" on page 249](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 58: ["“Business Districts and Corridors” on page 196](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 7: ["Public Realm" on page 122](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 53: ["Quality of Life" on page 190](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 34: ["Cultural Districts" on page 164](https://example.com)**
---

<!-- page 34 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Creative, Cultural, and Natural Amenities

*Photo: Native dance at the Commons*

### Goal 8. In 2040, Minneapolis will have the creative, cultural, and natural amenities that make the city a great place to live.

Minneapolis’ creative, cultural and natural amenities shape the city and its economy and attract residents, businesses and visitors. In 2017, Minneapolis had the repeat honor of being recognized as the Nation’s Best Park System by the Trust for Public Land; Minneapolis’ parks encompass the city’s defining lakes and river banks and include features of astonishing beauty, historical significance and ecological wonder, all within a thriving urban setting.

Not only that, but Minneapolis has a national park running right through it – the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, which follows the Mississippi River through the city. Its pinnacle, St. Anthony Falls, the only

<!-- page 35 -->
major waterfall on the Mississippi River, generated the power that created Minneapolis. St. Anthony Falls has been the anchor in the rebirth of Minneapolis’ central riverfront, an area that provides an incredible opportunity to increase access to natural and cultural amenities for Minneapolis residents and expand the city as a regional and national destination.

In addition to its parks and natural attractions, Minneapolis’ creative sector is often cited as an important factor in promoting the city on a global scale. In 2015, creative sector sales contributed $4.5 billion to Minneapolis’ economy – nearly eight times the revenues of Minneapolis’ sports sector. That said, the value of the creative and cultural amenities tied to the creative sector goes far beyond money. It’s much deeper, rooted in individual and group expression and learning, as well as in growing, exploring and forging deeper connections between Minneapolis residents. A 2014 survey conducted through the City’s Creative City Road Map planning process demonstrated that Minneapolis residents and artists think it’s important to offer arts and cultural programs to bridge differences between people and to make tangible the values and identities of local communities. The City will continue to encourage this creative – and natural – vibrancy that makes Minneapolis a welcoming attractive community.

To achieve the goal of creative, cultural, and natural amenities, the City of Minneapolis will steward, support, and strengthen its creative, cultural, and natural amenities. This means strengthening the ecosystem to support the creative sector and reducing disparities among creative sector workers to give people of color and indigenous people opportunities to participate and succeed. It means connecting cultural institutions and creative workers with the resources and dynamic spaces they need to thrive.

Minneapolis will continue to maintain, promote and expand upon the unparalleled beauty and recreational opportunities of the city’s parks and open spaces. The City will strive to fill gaps where residents do not have equal access to parks and open spaces and to connect residents to natural amenities. And the City will work to ensure that improvements to parks and park programs better serve Minneapolis’ changing population.

# <<FIGURE>> Creative, Cultural, and Natural Amenities Policies:

**17 policies relate to Goal 8: Creative, Cultural, and Natural Amenities.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

| |
| :--- |
| **Policy 29: “Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts” on page 156** |
| **Policy 30: “Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis’ Arts and Culture” on page 158** |
| **Policy 31: “Artists and Creative Workers” on page 159** |
| **Policy 53: “Quality of Life” on page 190** |
| **Policy 58: ““Business Districts and Corridors” on page 196** |
| **Policy 93: “Stewarding Historic Properties” on page 245** |
| **Policy 59: “Downtown” on page 197** |
| **Policy 76: “New Parks” on page 224** |
| **Policy 78: “Park Design and Programming” on page 226** |

<!-- page 36 -->
# 2040 Goals: Creative, Cultural, and Natural Amenities

---

**Policy 9: ["Open Spaces in New Development" on page 127](dummy-link)**

**Policy 7: ["Public Realm" on page 122](dummy-link)**

**Policy 14: ["Tree Canopy and Urban Forest" on page 136](dummy-link)**

**Policy 72: ["Sustainable Water System Management" on page 217](dummy-link)**

**Policy 34: ["Cultural Districts" on page 164](dummy-link)**

**Policy 97: ["Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways" on page 250](dummy-link)**

**Policy 99: ["University District" on page 253](dummy-link)**

**Policy 100: ["Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255](dummy-link)**

---

<!-- page 37 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Complete Neighborhoods

*Photo: Washington Avenue in downtown Minneapolis*

**Goal 9. In 2040, all Minneapolis residents will have access to employment, retail services, healthy food, parks, and other daily needs via walking, biking, and public transit.**

The Minneapolis Climate Action Plan adopted in 2013 provides a road map toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with targets of 15 percent by 2015 and 30 percent by 2025 compared with 2006 levels. In 2014, Minneapolis adopted a vital long-term goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

In 2015, on-road transportation accounted for 26 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. Today, over 90 percent of passenger miles traveled in Minneapolis are taken in personal automobiles. Even with the adoption of electric cars, a 38 percent reduction in passenger miles

<!-- page 38 -->
<<FIGURE>>

traveled by automobile is needed to achieve the 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (**Figure G9.1**).

Nationally, 45 percent of daily trips are taken for shopping and errands. Residents in many parts of the city have no choice but to drive long distances to access regular daily goods and services such as grocery stores. In most of the city, demand for retail is much higher than supply, indicating an opportunity to make retail more convenient for everyone and thereby reduce car trips and greenhouse gas emissions. The city also has 11 low-income census tracts in which residents live more than a mile from a full-service grocery store.

Currently 97 percent of Minneapolis residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, but small pockets of the city still lack easy access to such a critical component of a livable urban environment. Some of these gaps are in places where new residential neighborhoods are emerging. As the city’s population grows, it will be important to continue evaluating park access and to build new parks in underserved areas.

To achieve the goal of access to daily needs via walking, biking and public transit, the City of Minneapolis will allow more housing to be built in places close to transit, retail services and employment areas. The City will designate additional areas for commercial uses in parts of the city that are well-served by public transportation and where demand for retail goods and services exceeds supply. The City will support thriving business districts and corridors that build on cultural assets and serve the daily needs of Minneapolis residents. And the City will work to build parks in underserved areas to ensure that all residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park.

Achieving this goal also requires changes to the transportation system that make it easier to walk, bike or use transit to access daily needs. The City will proactively improve the pedestrian environment and continue to build and maintain a network of bikeways, while working

<!-- page 39 -->
with Metro Transit to increase the frequency, speed and reliability of the public transit system.

# Complete Neighborhoods Policies:

**21 policies relate to Goal 9: Complete Neighborhoods.** Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 1: “Access to Housing” on page 105**
***
**Policy 80: “Development Near METRO Stations” on page 228**
***
**Policy 38: “Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers” on page 169**
***
**Policy 2: “Access to Employment” on page 108**
***
**Policy 4: “Access to Commercial Goods and Services” on page 113**
***
**Policy 58: “Business Districts and Corridors” on page 196**
***
**Policy 64: “Food Businesses” on page 204**
***
**Policy 63: “Food Access” on page 202**
***
**Policy 76: “New Parks” on page 224**
***
**Policy 77: “Park Access” on page 225**
***
**Policy 17: “Complete Streets” on page 140**
***
**Policy 18: “Pedestrians” on page 142**
***
**Policy 19: “Bicycling” on page 144**
***
**Policy 20: “Transit” on page 145**
***
**Policy 24: “Shared Mobility” on page 151**
***
**Policy 25: “Innovations in Transportation and Infrastructure” on page 152**
***
**Policy 11: “Skyways” on page 130**
***
**Policy 34: “Cultural Districts” on page 164**
***
**Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182**
***
**Policy 87: “Northside” on page 237**
***
**Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252**
***

<!-- page 40 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Climate Change Resilience

*Photo: Community members planting the street median (Photo by Ted Eytan, via flickr.com)*

**Goal 10. In 2040, Minneapolis will be resilient to the effects of climate change and diminishing natural resources, and will be on track to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.**

Climate change is a defining challenge of this decade and even this century. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are destabilizing the earth’s climate and human activity is the primary driver of these emissions. Without rapid action to reduce these emissions, we will face threats to our economic livelihood, public health, and supplies of food, fresh water and power.

These impacts will not be felt equally across the globe, nor in Minneapolis; low-income and vulnerable residents face disproportionate impacts from climate change.

<!-- page 41 -->
# 2040 Goals: Climate Change Resilience

Simply paying for energy takes a disproportionate share of income for low-income residents. Energy bills constitute 19 percent of income for households with income between 75 and 100 percent of the federal poverty level, but even households with incomes between 150 and 185 percent of the federal poverty level have energy bills higher than is considered affordable. Older adults, children and people with disabilities or certain medical conditions are at great risk of the effects of climate change, including hotter summer days and nights, higher levels of humidity, extreme storm events and rising rates of insect-borne illnesses.

To be resilient to the effects of climate change and diminishing natural resources, the city’s residents, communities, businesses and systems must be able to survive, adapt and thrive despite the stresses and shocks caused by climate change. Accomplishing this requires supporting and fostering an environment where residents of Minneapolis are well-connected to their neighbors and have social support systems in times of stress and shock. It requires a physical environment, such as trees and landscaping, that helps provide shade and passive cooling opportunities in the summer and reduces the impact of extreme cold in the winter. It requires stormwater infrastructure that can handle larger storm events, and it requires water resources sufficient to last through periods of drought. It requires energy systems that can efficiently handle periods of high demand and buildings that rely less on electricity and natural gas. It requires a transportation system that functions throughout extreme weather events, and it requires areas housing and employment capable of accommodating population shifts due to climate migration.

The worst impacts of climate change are not inevitable. Moving to a more energy-efficient economy, renewable and reliable energy sources for buildings and transportation, and a less wasteful system has the potential not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to improve public health, clean the air and water, and keep more dollars in the local economy.

The Minneapolis Climate Action Plan adopted in 2013 provides a road map toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with targets of 15 percent by 2015 and 30 percent by 2025 compared with 2006 levels. In 2014, Minneapolis adopted a vital long-term goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

In 2015, buildings accounted for 71 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions (**Figure G10.1**); commercial and industrial buildings accounted for nearly two-thirds of that and residential buildings accounted for the rest. Despite an increase in the number of buildings in the city of nearly 8 percent since 2006, electricity consumption has declined 6 percent during the same period and continues on a downward trajectory. Furthermore, emissions from electricity consumption are down 31 percent from 2006, accounting for 81 percent of the city’s total greenhouse gas reductions in that time. Improved energy efficiency and cleaner electricity (more renewables and fewer coal power plants) are driving this change. Emissions from electricity consumption still comprise the largest share of the city’s total greenhouse gas emissions, but this is expected to be eclipsed by emissions from natural gas in the coming years as more clean, renewable electricity is added to Xcel Energy’s portfolio. To achieve the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 the city will need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, and this will require a transition from relying solely on fossil fuel-derived natural gas for heating.

<!-- page 42 -->
# 2040 Goals: Climate Change Resilience

<<FIGURE>>

In 2015, on-road transportation accounted for 26 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. Today, over 90 percent of passenger miles traveled in Minneapolis are in personal automobiles. Even with the adoption of electric cars, a 38 percent reduction in passenger miles traveled by automobile is needed to achieve the 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Achieving this goal requires changes to both transportation infrastructure and land use to make it easier to walk, bike or take transit to access jobs, goods and services. This means more people living close to transit, jobs, goods and services, as well as improved pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems.

In 2015, solid waste and wastewater accounted for 3 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. While this is low compared with emissions from buildings and transportation, opportunity exists to reduce it further, including by increasing recycling and organics collections as well as through water conservation.

To achieve the goal of climate change resilience, the City of Minneapolis will strive to substantially increase the energy efficiency of buildings by retrofitting existing buildings and improving the design of new buildings. It will also work to accelerate the transition to renewable energy in buildings and transportation. Minneapolis will establish a pattern of development and a transportation network that prioritizes pedestrians, bicyclers and transit users. At the same time, the City will prepare for the consequences of climate change by investing in improved stormwater management, urban heat island reduction and energy system resilience.

<!-- page 43 -->
# Climate Change Resilience Policies:

**21 policies relate to Goal 10: Climate Change Resilience.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 68: “Energy Efficient and Sustainable Buildings” on page 210**
---
**Policy 16: “Environmental Impacts of Transportation” on page 138**
---
**Policy 17: “Complete Streets” on page 140**
---
**Policy 18: “Pedestrians” on page 142**
---
**Policy 20: “Transit” on page 145**
---
**Policy 19: “Bicycling” on page 144**
---
**Policy 4: “Access to Commercial Goods and Services” on page 113**
---
**Policy 22: “Downtown Transportation” on page 148**
---
**Policy 80: “Development Near METRO Stations” on page 228**
---
**Policy 7: “Public Realm” on page 122**
---
**Policy 9: “Open Spaces in New Development” on page 127**
---
**Policy 13: “Landscaping” on page 134**
---
**Policy 14: “Tree Canopy and Urban Forest” on page 136**
---
**Policy 66: “Air Quality” on page 207**
---
**Policy 67: “Climate Resilient Communities” on page 209**
---
**Policy 69: “Renewable and Carbon-Free Energy” on page 212**
---
**Policy 72: “Sustainable Water System Management” on page 217**
---
**Policy 73: “Stormwater Management” on page 218**
---
**Policy 74: “Integration of Water Management into Development” on page 220**
---
**Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182**
---
**Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252**
---

<!-- page 44 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Clean Environment:

*Photo: Woman canoeing on the Mississippi River*

### Goal 11. In 2040, Minneapolis will have healthy air, clean water, and a vibrant ecosystem.

Minneapolis is annually ranked as one of the healthiest cities in the nation. In these rankings, the city’s park system, clean air and water, and quality of life are often cited as contributing to its high standing. Yet despite being acknowledged for these beneficial assets and its efforts to make the city cleaner and healthier, the City must persist in improving the quality of the air and surface waters and continue to improve the ecosystem. Minneapolis’ environmental system is an intricate network of living, engineered and climatic features working together. The health of the city is directly correlated to the strength of this ecosystem and how well these systems can thrive despite the pressures of climate change.

<!-- page 45 -->
# 2040 Goals: Clean Environment

Minneapolis’ lakes received excellent and good scores using Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board measures that assess conditions affecting the public use of lakes. The measures look at public health, water quality, habitat quality, aesthetics and recreational access. However, measurements established by the federal Clean Water Act list many of Minneapolis’ lakes and rivers as having multiple impairments ranging from chemicals and metals in fish to other water quality issues that impact aquatic life and recreation. Past City and state regulations and programs have made progress in improving the water quality of Minneapolis’ lakes and rivers, but more can be done locally.

Minneapolis’ air is getting cleaner. In 2007 where there were 225 days when pollutants were above the levels recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to be protective of public health. In 2015, there were 114 days. The sources of air pollutants range from mobile sources like cars and trucks to point sources such as factories and power plants and to area sources such as dry cleaners and gas stations. Minneapolis can impact these pollutant sources through transportation and land use planning, by encouraging reductions in energy consumption, and through programs and regulations to reduce point and area sources. In early 2018, Minneapolis became the first major city in the nation to go entirely “perc-free” as the last dry cleaner switches over to a safer process. “Perc” is classified as a likely carcinogen by the EPA, and in 2015 there were 99 occasions in the city when perc was detected at levels above the level the state defines as a “chronic health risk.” Minneapolis has established programs to help the last nine dry cleaners in the city using perc replace their equipment to make the switch.

The City will succeed in meeting this goal only if everyone is able to benefit from the outcomes, meaning all residents have access to clean air, quality water and plenty of recreational spaces in flourishing natural environments. Unfortunately, many of the city’s most vulnerable communities – low-income and indigenous communities and communities of color – experience more exposure to poor-quality air and other environmental pollutants. According to the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment, people of color are much more likely to live near pollution sources and breathe polluted air. These air pollutants – construction dust, auto fumes, smog, soot,

<<FIGURE>>

oil smoke, ash – are linked to serious health problems such as heart attacks, asthma, high blood pressure, lung conditions and low birth weights.

The City of Minneapolis strives to achieve environmental justice for its residents, which is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, in the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental or commercial operations or

<!-- page 46 -->
policies. This requires meaningful involvement from all communities, especially those disproportionately affected and previously disenfranchised, and intentional action by the City to protect the health of residents and guests of the city into 2040. In 2017, the City established Green Zones as a place-based policy initiative aimed at improving health and supporting economic development using environmentally conscious efforts in communities that face the cumulative effects of environmental pollution, as well as social, political and economic vulnerability. These efforts toward environmental justice, as well as for cleaner air and water overall, will continue to be a priority for the City.

To achieve the goal of a clean environment, the City of Minneapolis will meet and exceed the air quality standards recommended by the EPA by eliminating the use of some of the most common industrial volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and by reducing industrial sources of other harmful pollutants. The City will also pair investments with regulatory changes to achieve equity in areas of environmental injustice.

The City will protect and manage its water resources sustainably while preventing contaminants from polluting its water systems. Achieving this means maximizing waste reduction to meet the City’s zero-waste goals, supporting healthy ecosystems in and around surface waters, and increasing biodiversity to restore ecological habitats. It also means promoting large and small developments that enhance air, soil and water quality.

# <<FIGURE>> Clean Environment Policies:

**19 policies relate to Goal 11: Clean Environment.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 66: “Air Quality” on page 207**
---
**Policy 69: “Renewable and Carbon-Free Energy” on page 212**
---
**Policy 68: “Energy Efficient and Sustainable Buildings” on page 210**
---
**Policy 16: “Environmental Impacts of Transportation” on page 138**
---
**Policy 61: “Environmental Justice and Green Zones” on page 199**
---
**Policy 3: “Production and Processing” on page 110**
---
**Policy 62: “Contaminated Sites” on page 201**
---
**Policy 14: “Tree Canopy and Urban Forest” on page 136**
---
**Policy 70: “Ecology and Habitat” on page 214**
---
**Policy 71: “Soil Health” on page 216**
---
**Policy 65: “Urban Agriculture and Food Production” on page 206**
---
**Policy 72: “Sustainable Water System Management” on page 217**
---
**Policy 73: “Stormwater Management” on page 218**
---
**Policy 74: “Integration of Water Management into Development” on page 220**
---
**Policy 75: “Waste Reduction” on page 222**
---
**Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182**
---
**Policy 87: “Northside” on page 237**
---
**Policy 97: “Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways” on page 250**
---
**Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252**
---

<!-- page 47 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Healthy, Sustainable, and Diverse Economy

Photo: Local brewery (Photo
by smcgee, via flickr.com)

### Goal 12. In 2040, Minneapolis will remain the economic center of the region with a healthy, sustainable, and diverse economy.

Minneapolis is operating from a rich base of local assets that generate business and expand industries. Minneapolis and the surrounding region are home to 17 Fortune 500 companies and seven of the top 225 private companies. Minneapolis’ regional creative economy continues to be ranked in the top six in the Creative Vitality Index, with a score nearly four times higher than the national average. The University of Minnesota, ranked fourth in the nation for patent creation and the ninth-best U.S. public research institution, continues to lead in the development and creation of new technology, ideas and business. The state of Minnesota ranks first in the nation in the number of jobs

<!-- page 48 -->
per capita related to medical technology. And Forbes has called Minnesota the fastest-growing state for tech jobs

Minneapolis’ economy needs to continue to grow and innovate, and people of color and indigenous people must have physical, personal and institutional access to this growth. This means developing and supporting an economic climate that helps sustain and nourish businesses through targeted outreach to business sectors that demonstrate growth and support other Industries. It means addressing the growing racial disparities in Minneapolis’ economy by identifying barriers that have reduced access to economic opportunities and by developing strategies and programs that ensure people of color can participate, compete in and succeed in the economy – ultimately ensuring that the growth of Minneapolis benefits everyone.

The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development estimates that Minneapolis was home to 318,500 jobs in 2015, and the Metropolitan Council projects that the city will add 41,500 jobs by 2040. Much of this job growth will happen in downtown Minneapolis, the central business district that is the economic and transportation hub of the region. Downtown continues to attract and retain companies, employees, residents, commercial options and regional destinations. This growth can be attributed to a variety of investments, but ultimately downtown offers an experience and a bundle of goods and services that give it a competitive advantage over other areas in the region. Downtown is not the only driver of Minneapolis’ economic growth; numerous large employers such as hospitals, universities and cultural institutions are located outside of downtown and will continue to generate economic growth and opportunity.

Minneapolis’ neighborhood business districts and corridors also serve a vital economic role. Residents visit them for daily goods and services, they provide opportunities for small business and employment, they offer community gathering places, and together the buildings and businesses provide an identity for the surrounding community. These places bring vital energy and diversity to the city and region, and they should be supported.

Production and processing businesses are also an important element of a healthy local and regional economy. These types of businesses include but are not limited to medical device and electronic instrument manufacturing, breweries and distilleries, food production, metal fabrication, and distribution and fulfillment. Production and processing businesses provide economic opportunities for people without a college degree, especially those of color, by offering higher wages than comparable jobs in the retail, accommodation and food service industries. In Minneapolis less than half of black, American Indian and Hispanic residents have more than a high school education, compared with 83 percent of white non-Hispanic residents. These educational disparities create barriers to finding employment that pays a living wage – but production and processing businesses in the region have average monthly starting wages for workers of color that are twice as high as retail businesses and nearly two-and-a-half times that of accommodation and food service businesses. The City will work to ensure these and other economic opportunities are available to all residents.

To achieve this goal, the City of Minneapolis will support existing businesses and help them grow. Additionally, the City will foster innovation and entrepreneurship in business sectors that show promise for growth and give Minneapolis a competitive advantage. This means supporting new business creation with a focus on creating opportunity for people of color and indigenous people.

Minneapolis will maintain and expand opportunities to start and grow businesses. This means strengthening downtown’s position as the region’s business, commercial, cultural and entertainment center. It also means supporting neighborhood business districts and corridors. And it means ensuring the physical space necessary for the production, processing, and distribution of products, which also helps provide quality living-wage jobs to residents.

<!-- page 49 -->
# Healthy, Sustainable, and Diverse Economy Policies:

**27 policies relate to Goal 12: Healthy, Sustainable, and Diverse Economy.**

Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 56: ["Supporting Small Businesses" on page 193](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 55: ["Business Innovation and Expansion" on page 192](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 54: ["Supporting Economic Growth" on page 191](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 57: ["Cluster Strategy" on page 195](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 59: ["Downtown" on page 197](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 22: ["Downtown Transportation" on page 148](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 11: ["Skyways" on page 130](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 53: ["Quality of Life" on page 190](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 30: ["Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis' Arts and Culture" on page 158](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 28: ["MSP Airport" on page 155](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 21: ["Freight" on page 147](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 58: ["Business Districts and Corridors" on page 196](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 2: ["Access to Employment" on page 108](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 3: ["Production and Processing" on page 110](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 23: ["Coordinated Development Strategy" on page 149](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 52: ["Human Capital and a Trained Workforce" on page 188](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 51: ["Healthy Pre-K Development" on page 187](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 49: ["Educational and Economic Access" on page 184](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 31: ["Artists and Creative Workers" on page 159](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 90: ["Technology in the Economy" on page 241](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 34: ["Cultural Districts" on page 164](https://example.com)**
---

**Policy 48: ["Freeway Remediation" on page 182](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 87: ["Northside" on page 237](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 98: ["Innovation Districts" on page 252](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 99: ["University District" on page 253](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 100: ["Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255](https://example.com)**
---

<!-- page 50 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Proactive, Accessible, and Sustainable Government

*Photo: Resident speaking at Minneapolis City Council hearing (Photo by Tony Webster)*

### Goal 13. In 2040, Minneapolis City government will be proactive, accessible, and fiscally sustainable.

When the City develops policies, enacts ordinances, creates programs or deploys resources, its activities have a direct effect on residents, businesses and visitors. To be effective, the City needs to continually explore refinements and new tools to ensure it provides services in a streamlined, accessible, and equitable manner.

This includes committing to meaningful engagement with residents and businesses when making decisions. It means improving the accessibility of engagement activities and intentionally seeking out engagement with populations that have been underrepresented – specifically communities of color and indigenous peoples. Pairing public feedback with empirical research and data will lead to better-informed decisions and increased transparency. The City should also

<!-- page 51 -->
improve engagement by expanding the racial and ethnic diversity of its workforce, supply chain and vendors.

Like all cities, Minneapolis often faces fiscal uncertainty as a result of actions at the federal and state levels. This makes City government more reliant on the local tax base for support and requires the City to make diligent, prudent fiscal decisions and seek opportunities to leverage City resources with external funding sources.

To achieve the goal of being a proactive, accessible, and fiscally sustainable government, the City of Minneapolis will provide services that benefit residents, workers, visitors and businesses in a streamlined, accessible and equitable manner. This means improving services and using data and research to guide decision-making and plan for the future. It also means planning effectively for municipally owned facilities to serve a growing city.

Minneapolis will manage existing physical assets and work to implement the right improvements at the optimal time; and will use those improvements to cumulatively progress multiple City goals. This means creating and seizing opportunities to leverage funding with internal and regional partners or other entities that invest in the city. The City will also serve as a model employer by increasing the diversity of its workforce and providing employment opportunities for youth.

<<FIGURE>>

# Proactive, Accessible, and Sustainable Government Policies:

**7 policies relate to Goal 13: Proactive, Accessible, and Sustainable Government.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 88: “Public Services Policy” on page 239**
---
**Policy 89: “Technology in the City Enterprise” on page 240**
---
**Policy 54: “Supporting Economic Growth” on page 191**
---
**Policy 84: “Public Safety” on page 234**
---
**Policy 85: “Access to Health, Social and Emergency Service” on page 235**
---
**Policy 27: “Transportation Partnerships” on page 154**
---
**Policy 100: “Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255**
---

<!-- page 52 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Equitable Civic Participation System

*Photo: Residents engaging at an open house event*

**Goal 14. In 2040, Minneapolis will have an equitable civic participation system that enfranchises everyone, recognizes the core and vital service neighborhood organizations provide to the City of Minneapolis, and builds people’s long term capacity to organize to improve their lives and neighborhoods.**

In 2016 Minneapolis conducted a survey of its residents. Nearly half of the respondents indicated they do not feel they can influence decisions made in the City of Minneapolis. Approximately 30 percent of respondents felt they did not have a voice about issues important to them when interacting with the City. For Minneapolis to successfully implement the policies in this plan and work toward achieving its goals, it’s important to give

<!-- page 53 -->
stakeholders a voice and the capacity to influence decisions.

This plan strives to eliminate disparities among people of color and indigenous peoples compared with white people. This includes differences in rates of civic participation such as representation on neighborhood organization boards and City boards and commissions, and levels of engagement on issues, policies, regulations, programs and other City efforts. Implementing many of the policies of this plan requires a greater understanding of Minneapolis’ diverse communities to identify and remove barriers to participation. It also requires deeper and ongoing engagement, specifically with a focus on people of color, indigenous people and vulnerable populations such as low-income households, the elderly and people with disabilities. This means continuing to explore new methods and techniques to not only engage with underrepresented populations but to build trust and strengthen connections. And it means partnering with organizations such as cultural groups and neighborhood organizations that already have connections in the community and can help proactively engage residents on City activities.

To achieve the goal of an equitable civic participation system, the City of Minneapolis will actively build the community’s capacity to strengthen authentic engagement through neighborhood associations and City advisory committees and to facilitate meaningful resident input into City policies, programs and procedures; and it will work to maximize the involvement of renters, people with disabilities, people of color, indigenous people and others who have been historically underrepresented in civic life. This requires deepening an understanding among City staff of Minneapolis’ diverse communities, their histories, and how the government has impacted them over time The City will track the progress of engagement improvements as well as ensure that City staff reflects the diversity of Minneapolis’ residents.

The City will also help foster the kinds of social connections that encourage and promote civic participation by ensuring safe and welcoming community spaces for all to connect with each other, including parks, community and youth centers, and city streets and rights of way.

# <<FIGURE>> Equitable Civic Participation System Policies:

**8 policies relate to Goal 14: Equitable Civic Participation System.**

Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 81: “Social Connectedness” on page 230**
---
**Policy 79: “Healthy Youth Development” on page 227**
---
**Policy 88: “Public Services Policy” on page 239**
---
**Policy 89: “Technology in the City Enterprise” on page 240**
---
**Policy 32: “Arts and Culture in Community Development” on page 160**
---
**Policy 91: “Heritage Preservation Outreach” on page 242**
---
**Policy 34: “Cultural Districts” on page 164**
---
**Policy 100: “Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255**
---

<!-- page 54 -->
# 2040 Topics

The Comprehensive Plan policies are sorted by eleven topics. Each topic contains policies that relate to the built, natural, and economic environment of the city with background information about the importance of each topic to the future of our city.

<!-- page 55 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Land Use & Built Form

*Photo: Stone Arch Bridge and downtown Minneapolis (Photo by Dan Anderson, Courtesy of Meet Minneapolis)*

The Minneapolis 2040 goals describe a future for Minneapolis that is equitable, healthy, and sustainable. The policies of this plan are intended to provide an overarching structure for achieving those goals as they relate to the built, natural, and economic environment of our city.

Among the goals of this plan is to ensure that all Minneapolis residents will be able to afford and access quality housing throughout the city, that all Minneapolis residents will have access to a living wage job, and that all Minneapolis residents will have access to daily needs via walking, biking, and public transit. Policies associated with the topics of Housing, Economic Competitiveness, and Transportation describe proactive steps the City will take to achieve these goals.

<!-- page 56 -->
This section, Land Use and Built Form, describes where new housing, workplaces, and retail establishments may locate in the city in order to achieve the plan goals. This guidance is communicated through a combination of policies and maps. The first four policies that appear below – Access to Housing, Access to Employment, Production and Processing, and Access to Commercial Goods and Services – form the basis for the Future Land Use Map and the Built Form Map that guide the location and characteristics of new buildings.

The Access to Housing policy outlines the role of the Future Land Use and Built Form maps in increasing housing choice throughout the city, acknowledging the contribution of zoning to racially-restrictive housing practices of the first half of the 20th century, and the lasting effect those actions had on people of color and indigenous people. The policy also reinforces the practice of developing multifamily housing on transit routes, providing people the opportunity to live without a car, or with fewer cars in each household, helping to work toward the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goal. This policy, and the resultant housing guidance on the future land use and built form maps, ensures that we have places throughout the city to increase housing supply and choice. The remaining Housing policies of the plan communicate a commitment to proactively meet the housing needs of Minneapolis residents, including through the production and preservation of affordable housing and expansion of the City’s inclusionary housing policies and tools.

Together, the Access to Employment and Production and Processing policies outline the role of the Future Land Use and Built Form maps in supporting employment growth and ensuring that land is available for living-wage jobs in areas close to where people live. These policies work in conjunction with the Economic Competitiveness policies of this plan, which communicate a commitment to ensuring that Minneapolis residents have job training and skills necessary to participate in the economy, and will have access to living-wage jobs.

The Access to Commercial Goods and Services policy outlines the role of the Future Land Use and Built Form maps in providing the opportunity for Minneapolis residents to access daily needs without using a car. This is especially important because achieving the City’s goals of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions requires reducing the number of car trips in Minneapolis by 37%. People take more trips running errands than going to work, so it is critical to give people the opportunity to meet their daily needs closer to home.

The remaining policies inform the design of buildings and the spaces in between, and support the goals of a high-quality and distinctive environment, a clean environment, and a city that is resilient to climate change.

<!-- page 57 -->
# Land Use and Built Form Policies:

**21 policies relate to Land Use and Built Form.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 1: "Access to Housing” on page 105**
***
**Policy 2: “Access to Employment” on page 108**
***
**Policy 3: “Production and Processing” on page 110**
***
**Policy 4: “Access to Commercial Goods and Services” on page 113**
***
**Policy 80: “Development Near METRO Stations” on page 228**
***
**Policy 6: “Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design” on page 118**
***
**Policy 5: “Visual Quality of New Development” on page 116**
***
**Policy 7: “Public Realm” on page 122**
***
**Policy 8: “Public Safety Through Environmental Design” on page 124**
***
**Policy 68: “Energy Efficient and Sustainable Buildings” on page 210**
***
**Policy 9: “Open Spaces in New Development” on page 127**
***
**Policy 10: “Street Grid” on page 128**
***
**Policy 11: “Skyways” on page 130**
***
**Policy 12: “Lighting” on page 132**
***
**Policy 13: “Landscaping” on page 134**
***
**Policy 14: “Tree Canopy and Urban Forest” on page 136**
***
**Policy 74: “Integration of Water Management into Development” on page 220**
***
**Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182**
***
**Policy 97: “Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways” on page 250**
***
**Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252**
***
**Policy 100: “Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255**

# Maps: Future Land Use and Built Form

The Future Land Use and Built Form Maps are the primary tools for implementing the Land Use and Built Form policies of the Comprehensive Plan. They also embody and implement policies found throughout this plan, as well as the fourteen Comprehensive Plan Goals. The Future Land Use Map guides land use for every parcel in the city. Any changes to the use of land must be consistent with the guidance of the Future Land Use Map. The Built Form Map guides the scale of development for every parcel in the city through Built Form Districts. The built form of all new and remodeled buildings must be consistent with the guidance of the Built Form Map.

The maps, along with other policies in the plan, will be used to make decisions on development proposals and to shape regulations over the life of the document. Height, bulk, and setback standards, among other regulations, will continue to work in concert with and be informed by these maps and policies to guide and govern development that occurs throughout the city.

It is important to note that not every property in the city will be redeveloped between now and 2040. Rather, these maps provide guidance in the event that a change is proposed by a property owner. Following adoption of Minneapolis 2040, the City of Minneapolis will update its Zoning Code and Zoning Map to reflect the guidance of the Future Land Use and Built Form Maps.

Additional supporting materials for Land Use and Built Form content can be found in Appendix B, Land Use.

<!-- page 58 -->
# FUTURE LAND USE MAP

The Future Land Use Map identifies the types of uses allowed on a given parcel according to the categories described below. The map guides use only. The Future Land Use Map works in tandem with the Built Form Map to provide a complete set of guidance for each parcel.

### Future Land Use Categories
There are 12 Future Land Use Categories.

#### Urban Neighborhood
Urban Neighborhood is a predominantly residential area with a range of allowed building types. May include small-scale institutional and semi-public uses (for example, schools, community centers, religious institutions, public safety facilities, etc.) scattered throughout. Like the Neighborhood Mixed Use category, commercial uses can continue serving their existing commercial function. Commercial zoning is appropriate for these properties, while expansion of commercial uses and zoning into surrounding areas is not encouraged.

#### Neighborhood Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use includes individual commercial uses and small collections of commercial uses, located primarily away from major streets, that should continue to serve their existing commercial function. Commercial zoning is appropriate, while expansion of commercial uses and zoning into surrounding areas is not encouraged. Semi-permanent or temporary commercial retail establishments such as farmer's markets are also appropriate in this category (**Figure T1.1**).

#### Corridor Mixed Use
Corridor Mixed Use serves a larger market area than Neighborhood Mixed Use, and may have multiple competing uses of the same type. Commercial zoning is appropriate, mixed use multi story development is encouraged (**Figure T1.1**), and contiguous expansion of commercial zoning is allowed.

#### Community Mixed Use
Large-scale mixed use development is encouraged throughout these areas, with commercial uses fronting on major streets. Commercial retail spaces are typically smaller in order to generate pedestrian activity, and are often a destination for customers coming from outside of the market area. Active uses that are accessible to the general public such as office, food service, retail, or medical establishments are required at the street level; therefore single-use residential development is

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 59 -->
# 2040 Topics: Land Use and Built Form

not permitted (**Figure T1.1**). Contiguous expansion of commercial zoning is allowed.

### Destination Mixed Use
Commercial retail uses are required at the street level of all development in this category to encourage pedestrian activity beyond the typical daytime business hours (**Figure T1.1**). Multi-story development is required. Contiguous expansion of commercial zoning is allowed.

### Goods and Services Corridor (Figure T1.2)
Goods and Services Corridors serve two purposes:

* To indicate where commercial uses should front in relation to properties guided for commercial future land uses.

* In addition to the guidance for the mixed use land use categories found in this section, Goods and Services Corridors identify where the establishment or expansion of commercial uses can be considered. Properties immediately adjacent to a Goods and Services Corridor may be considered for commercial activity, allowing for uses similar in scale and scope to the Neighborhood and Corridor Mixed Use categories.

### Neighborhood Office and Services
In addition to the uses allowed in Urban Neighborhood, allows for greater flexibility in locating low impact commercial activity. Dental and medical services and offices, small scale lodging, and small scale retail are appropriate.

### Public, Office, and Institutional
Accommodates major office centers, public and semi-public uses, including museums, hospitals, civic uses, and college and university campuses. Entertainment uses of greater intensity such as stadiums should be focused in downtown and university campuses. Multi-story residential uses are permitted in this category, with mixed-use encouraged – particularly fronting major corridors.

### Parks and Open Space
Applies to land or water areas generally free from development. Primarily used for park and recreation,

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 60 -->
# 2040 Topics: Land Use and Built Form

natural resource conservation, transportation, historic, or scenic purposes. Park related uses such as amphitheaters, food service, parkways, and equipment rental are also permitted. This generally does not capture privately-owned and operated open spaces and plazas.

### Production and Processing
Production and Processing areas are suitable for a wide range of employment-focused development. These areas are designated with the intent of protecting them from encroaching non-industrial uses that could erode the diverse job base that these uses provide. Residential uses are strictly prohibited.

### Production Mixed Use
Production Mixed Use is a land use designation that allows both production and non-production uses, recognizing that while many buildings in these areas are no longer viable for modern production industries, they are increasingly occupied by a wide variety of uses that contribute to the economic health and diversity of the city. Residential uses are allowed as part of mixed use buildings that provide production space and must incorporate mitigation strategies to address potential conflicts between existing production uses and new residences. Adaptive re-use of older industrial property is encouraged.

### Transportation
The Transportation land use designation allows for Production and Processing uses, but is typically utilized for transportation intensive uses that support commercial and production activity throughout the city.

<!-- page 61 -->
**FIGURE T1.3: FUTURE LAND USE MAP *Citywide (Updated Oct 2025\*)***

<<FIGURE>>

| LEGEND | |
| :--- | :--- |
| | Urban Neighborhood |
| | Neighborhood Mixed Use |
| | Corridor Mixed Use |
| | Community Mixed Use |
| | Destination Mixed Use |
| ▪▪▪▪ | Goods and Services Corridor |
| | Neighborhood Office and Services |
| | Public, Office, and Institutional |
| | Parks and Open Space |
| | Production and Processing |
| | Production Mixed Use |
| | Transportation |

*These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 62 -->
# 2040 Topics: Land Use and Built Form

### FIGURE T1.3a: FUTURE LAND USE MAP *Downtown Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)*

<<FIGURE>>

*These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 63 -->
**FIGURE T1.3b: FUTURE LAND USE MAP North Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)**

<<FIGURE>>

These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.

\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.

<!-- page 64 -->
# 2040 Topics: Land Use and Built Form

### FIGURE T1.3c: FUTURE LAND USE MAP *East Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)*

<<FIGURE>>

| LEGEND | |
| :--- | :--- |
| | Urban Neighborhood |
| | Neighborhood Mixed Use |
| | Corridor Mixed Use |
| | Community Mixed Use |
| | Destination Mixed Use |
| ▀ ▀ ▀ | Goods and Services Corridor |
| | Neighborhood Office and Services |
| | Public, Office, and Institutional |
| | Parks and Open Space |
| | Production and Processing |
| | Production Mixed Use |
| | Transportation |

*These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 65 -->
**FIGURE T1.3d: FUTURE LAND USE MAP South Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)**

<<FIGURE>>

| LEGEND | |
| :--- | :--- |
| | Urban Neighborhood |
| | Neighborhood Mixed Use |
| | Corridor Mixed Use |
| | Community Mixed Use |
| | Destination Mixed Use |
| ⬛⬛⬛⬛ | Goods and Services Corridor |
| | Neighborhood Office and Services |
| | Public, Office, and Institutional |
| | Parks and Open Space |
| | Production and Processing |
| | Production Mixed Use |
| | Transportation |

*These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 66 -->
### FIGURE T1.3e: FUTURE LAND USE MAP *Southwest Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)*

<<FIGURE>>

| LEGEND |
| :--- |
| Urban Neighborhood |
| Neighborhood Mixed Use |
| Corridor Mixed Use |
| Community Mixed Use |
| Destination Mixed Use |
| **- - - -** Goods and Services Corridor |
| Neighborhood Office and Services |
| Public, Office, and Institutional |
| Parks and Open Space |
| Production and Processing |
| Production Mixed Use |
| Transportation |

*These maps provide an overview of the land use guidance; for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 67 -->
# BUILT FORM MAP

The Built Form Map guides the scale of development for every parcel in the city, independent of the uses allowed on the site. The built form of all new and remodeled buildings must be consistent with the guidance of the Built Form Map.

### Built Form Districts

There are 14 Built Form districts.

### Interior 1

The Interior 1 district is typically applied in parts of the city farthest from downtown, in the areas between transit routes.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Interior 1 district should be small-scale residential. Individual lots are permitted to have up to three dwelling units. Combining of lots is generally not permitted. Building heights should be 1 to 2.5 stories.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

### Interior 2

The Interior 2 district is typically applied in parts of the city that developed during the era when streetcars were a primary mode of transportation, in the areas in between transit routes, and on select streets with intermittent local transit service. It is also applied adjacent to the Corridor 4 and Corridor 6 districts, serving as a transition to lower intensity residential areas.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Interior 2 district should be small-scale residential. Individual lots are permitted to have up to three dwelling units. Multifamily buildings with more than three units are permitted on larger lots. Limited combining of lots is permitted. Building heights should be 1 to 2.5 stories.

<!-- page 68 -->
### Interior 3

The Interior 3 district is typically applied in parts of the city closest to downtown, in the areas in between transit routes. It is also applied adjacent to select corridors and near METRO stations, serving as a transition to lower intensity residential areas.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Interior 3 district should reflect a variety of building types on both small and moderate-sized lots, including on combined lots. Building heights should be 1 to 3 stories.

<<FIGURE>>

### Corridor 3

The Corridor 3 district is typically applied along transit routes farther from downtown that are on narrower rights of way, and serves as a transition between lower intensity residential areas and areas immediately surrounding METRO stations.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Corridor 3 district should reflect a variety of building types on both small and moderate-sized lots, including on combined lots. Building heights should be 1 to 3 stories. Requests to exceed 3 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 69 -->
**Corridor 4**

The Corridor 4 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes farther from downtown, that are on narrower rights of way, and on select streets with local transit service. It is also applied near downtown in areas between transit routes, and serves as a transition between lower intensity residential areas and areas immediately surrounding METRO stations.

<<FIGURE>>

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Corridor 4 district should reflect a variety of building types on both small and moderate-sized lots, including on combined lots. Building heights should be 1 to 4 stories. Requests to exceed 4 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

***

**Corridor 6**

The Corridor 6 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes as well as in areas near METRO stations.

<<FIGURE>>

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Corridor 6 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Building heights should be 2 to 6 stories. Building heights should be at least 2 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Corridor 6 district. Requests to exceed 6 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

<!-- page 70 -->
### Transit 10

The Transit 10 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes, adjacent to METRO stations, in neighborhoods near downtown, and in downtown.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Transit 10 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Building heights should be 2 to 10 stories. Building heights should be at least 2 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Transit 10 district. Requests to exceed 10 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

<<FIGURE>>

***

### Transit 15

The Transit 15 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes, adjacent to METRO stations, in neighborhoods near downtown, and in downtown.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Transit 15 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Building heights should be 3 to 15 stories. Building heights should be at least 3 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Transit 15 district. Requests to exceed 15 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 71 -->
### Transit 20
The Transit 20 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes, adjacent to METRO stations, in neighborhoods near downtown, and in downtown.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Transit 20 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Upper floors of taller buildings should be set back to increase access to light and air. Building heights should be 4 to 20 stories. Building heights should be at least 4 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Transit 20 district. Requests to exceed 20 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

<<FIGURE>>

***

### Transit 30
The Transit 30 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes, adjacent to METRO stations, in neighborhoods near downtown, and adjacent to the downtown office core.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Transit 30 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Upper floors of taller buildings should be set back to increase access to light and air. Building heights should be at least 10 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Transit 30 district adjacent to the downtown core and nearby neighborhoods. Building heights should be 6 to 30 stories everywhere else. Requests to exceed 30 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 72 -->
### Core 50

The Core 50 district is applied in the downtown central business district. The district supports the office core as the center of the region’s economy by allowing the largest building types in the city.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Core 50 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots, with multiple buildings per block. The Core 50 district supports the office core as the center of the region’s economy, with the largest building types in the city. Building heights should be at least 10 stories, with no maximum.

### Production

The Production district is typically applied in areas of the city that are intended for the long term preservation of production, transportation, and job generating uses.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Production built form district should reflect a variety of building types, usually on large sized lots. Building heights should be 1 to 10 stories. Requests to exceed 10 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan Goals.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 73 -->
### Parks
The Parks district is typically applied in areas with the Parks and Open Space future land use designation.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Parks built form district should be designed to support typical parks activities such as shelters, amphitheaters, food service, and equipment rental. Building heights should be 1 to 2.5 stories. Requests to exceed 2.5 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

***

### Transportation
The Transportation district is typically applied in areas with the Transportation future land use designation.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Transportation built form district should generally conform to the districts adjacent to it on the map.

<!-- page 74 -->
# 2040 Topics: Land Use and Built Form

### FIGURE T1.4: BUILT FORM MAP *Citywide (Updated Oct 2025\*)*

<<FIGURE>>

*These maps provide an overview of the built form guidance, for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 75 -->
**FIGURE T1.4a: BUILT FORM MAP *Downtown Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)* **

<<FIGURE>>

These maps provide an overview of the built form guidance, for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.
\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.

<!-- page 76 -->
**FIGURE T1.4b: BUILT FORM MAP *North Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)***

| LEGEND |  |
| :--- | :--- |
| | Interior 1 |
| | Interior 2 |
| | Interior 3 |
| | Corridor 3 |
| | Corridor 4 |
| | Corridor 6 |
| | Transit 10 |
| | Transit 15 |
| | Transit 20 |
| | Transit 30 |
| | Core 50 |
| | Production |
| | Parks |
| | Transportation |

<<FIGURE>>

*These maps provide an overview of the built form guidance, for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 77 -->
#### FIGURE T1.4c: BUILT FORM MAP *East Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)*

<<FIGURE>>

| LEGEND |  |
| :--- | :--- |
| | Interior 1 |
| | Interior 2 |
| | Interior 3 |
| | Corridor 3 |
| | Corridor 4 |
| | Corridor 6 |
| | Transit 10 |
| | Transit 15 |
| | Transit 20 |
| | Transit 30 |
| | Core 50 |
| | Production |
| | Parks |
| | Transportation |

*These maps provide an overview of the built form guidance, for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 78 -->
### FIGURE T1.4d: BUILT FORM MAP *South Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)*

<<FIGURE>>

| LEGEND | |
| :--- | :--- |
| | Interior 1 |
| | Interior 2 |
| | Interior 3 |
| | Corridor 3 |
| | Corridor 4 |
| | Corridor 6 |
| | Transit 10 |
| | Transit 15 |
| | Transit 20 |
| | Transit 30 |
| | Core 50 |
| | Production |
| | Parks |
| | Transportation |

*These maps provide an overview of the built form guidance, for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 79 -->
### FIGURE T1.4e: BUILT FORM MAP *Southwest Sector (Updated Oct 2025\*)*

| LEGEND |
| :--- |
| Interior 1 |
| Interior 2 |
| Interior 3 |
| Corridor 3 |
| Corridor 4 |
| Corridor 6 |
| Transit 10 |
| Transit 15 |
| Transit 20 |
| Transit 30 |
| Core 50 |
| Production |
| Parks |
| Transportation |

<<FIGURE>>

*These maps provide an overview of the built form guidance, for parcel specific information refer to the online version at Minneapolis2040.com.*
*\*Updates include comprehensive plan map amendments from 2020-2025. See Appendix J for more information.*

<!-- page 80 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Transportation

The Transportation policies of this plan support a multimodal network that prioritizes walking, biking and transit.

The polices are intended to achieve outcomes that increase equity in our transportation system, address climate change and reduce carbon emissions, improve human health through improved air quality and increases in active travel, and enable the movement of people, goods, and services across the city.

Additional supporting materials for Transportation content can be found in Appendix D, Transportation.

*Photo: Transit riders boarding a light rail train (Photo by Metro Transit)*

<!-- page 81 -->
# Transportation Policies:

**24 policies relate to Transportation.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

**Policy 15: [“Transportation and Equity” on page 137](http://)**
___
**Policy 16: [“Environmental Impacts of Transportation” on page 138](http://)**
___
**Policy 17: [“Complete Streets” on page 140](http://)**
___
**Policy 18: [“Pedestrians” on page 142](http://)**
___
**Policy 19: [“Bicycling” on page 144](http://)**
___
**Policy 20: [“Transit” on page 145](http://)**
___
**Policy 7: [“Public Realm” on page 122](http://)**
___
**Policy 6: [“Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design” on page 118](http://)**
___
**Policy 11: [“Skyways” on page 130](http://)**
___
**Policy 10: [“Street Grid” on page 128](http://)**
___
**Policy 21: [“Freight” on page 147](http://)**
___
**Policy 22: [“Downtown Transportation” on page 148](http://)**
___
**Policy 80: [“Development Near METRO Stations” on page 228](http://)**
___
**Policy 23: [“Coordinated Development Strategy” on page 149](http://)**
___
**Policy 24: [“Shared Mobility” on page 151](http://)**
___
**Policy 25: [“Innovations in Transportation and Infrastructure” on page 152](http://)**
___
**Policy 27: [“Transportation Partnerships” on page 154](http://)**
___
**Policy 28: [“MSP Airport” on page 155](http://)**
___
**Policy 26: [“Vision Zero” on page 153](http://)**
___
**Policy 38: [“Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers” on page 169](http://)**
___
**Policy 34: [“Cultural Districts” on page 164](http://)**
___
**Policy 48: [“Freeway Remediation” on page 182](http://)**
___
**Policy 98: [“Innovation Districts” on page 252](http://)**
___
**Policy 100: [“Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255](http://)**
___

<!-- page 82 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Housing

Photo: Bungalow court in
northeast Minneapolis

Minneapolis is growing faster than it has since 1950. The Metropolitan Council estimates that between 2010 and 2016 the city added over 12,000 housing units and more than 37,000 residents. With this growth comes increased demand for housing and an associated increase in housing costs and rents. As a result, housing units that were once affordable no longer are, and less housing is available for low-income residents of Minneapolis.

The mismatch between housing supply and demand in Minneapolis not only contributes to displacing low-income Minneapolis residents, but also leads to that demand being met in communities outside of Minneapolis. With its existing built form and infrastructure, Minneapolis is uniquely

<!-- page 83 -->
positioned to provide new housing options with the lowest possible environmental impact in the metropolitan area.

Since 2000, Minneapolis has lost roughly 15,000 housing units that are considered affordable for those earning 50 percent of the area median income. These units generally still exist, but they cost more to own or rent, making them unaffordable to this demographic. In 2017, for the 13-county metropolitan region, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculated a median family income of $90,400. Based on this, 50 percent of the area median income for a single-person household is $31,650 annually (or an hourly wage of $15.22 for a standard workweek and year), and for a family of four it’s $45,200 annually (or a

<<FIGURE>>

household hourly wage of $21.73 for a standard workweek and year).

Also since 2000, overall household incomes in Minneapolis have slightly decreased – but not equally across racial groups (**Figure T3.1**). White non-Hispanic and Asian households have seen increases in household income since 2000, while black households have experienced an approximately 40 percent decrease in income

For a growing number of residents, especially residents of color, incomes are not keeping up with rising housing costs. This results in fewer housing units in fewer neighborhoods that are affordable to renters. For households of color that are renters that means there are few, if any, housing units that are affordable.

The loss of affordable housing units and the changes in household income have resulted in a greater number of cost-burdened households – households in which more than 30 percent of household income goes toward housing.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 84 -->
Thirty-seven percent of all households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, but, similar to the change in household incomes, this is not equal across racial groups. Over 50 percent of black households and over 45 percent of American Indian and Hispanic households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, whereas one in three white households are cost-burdened **(Figure T3.2)**.

Racial disparities persist in all aspects of housing. The disparities that Minneapolis residents experience are intertwined with the city’s development due to racially discriminatory housing practices and federal housing policy. In the first half of the 20th century, zoning regulations and racist federal housing policies worked together to determine who could live where and in what type of housing. This shaped the opportunities available to multiple generations of Minneapolis residents **(Figure T3.3)**.

<<FIGURE>>

Following the Great Depression, redlining and other loan underwriting guidance from the federal government steered where private investment in housing were made. This practice prevented access to mortgages in areas with Jews, African-Americans and other minorities, as well as in the more densely populated and mixed-use parts of the city. Related guidance in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) underwriting manuals encouraged the segregation of land uses in order to reduce the financial risk of backing single-family home loans near land uses deemed undesirable, such as factories and even multifamily housing. This guidance, from 1934, reinforced the approach that Minneapolis and other cities in the United States began years earlier through the introduction of zoning ordinances.

The FHA promoted zoning as an effective tool for assuring a “homogenous and harmonious neighborhood.” In the view of the FHA, however, zoning was not enough to accomplish the segregation of the races as a means of protecting property values. The FHA underwriting manual made the case for racially restrictive covenants, using language that described people of color as undesirable neighbors in the same vein as nuisances such as odor and high traffic: “The more important among the adverse influential factors are the ingress of undesirable racial or nationality groups; infiltration of business or commercial uses of properties; the presence of smoke, odors, fog, heavy trafficked streets and railroads.”

These policies and regulations left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its residents. Areas of Minneapolis with higher densities and a mix of land uses experienced disinvestment, in part because banks did not lend in those areas. On the outskirts of the city, a post-Depression development pattern emerged with little variation in housing types and density and with few areas for commercial development. Today, the zoning map in these areas remains largely unchanged from the era of intentional racial segregation. This has shaped

<!-- page 85 -->
the opportunities available to multiple generations of Minneapolis residents and significantly contributed to many of the disparities people of color and indigenous people experienced and continue to experience.

To address these issues, the City of Minneapolis will expand opportunities to increase the housing supply in a way that meets changing needs and desires. This means allowing more housing options, especially in areas that currently lack housing choice and in areas with access to frequent and fast transit employment, and goods and services. It also means creating and expanding new resources and tools to produce and preserve affordable housing, to minimize the displacement of existing residents, and to ensure housing is maintained to promote health and safety. The City will also need to invest in its residents, especially residents of color and indigenous residents, to ensure that it identifies and removes barriers to accessing and retaining housing.

# <<FIGURE>> Housing Policies:

**22 policies relate to Housing.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 1: ["Access to Housing" on page 105](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 33: ["Affordable Housing Production and Preservation" on page 162](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 35: ["Innovative Housing Types" on page 165](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 36: ["Innovative Housing Strategies and Data-Driven Decisions" on page 166](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 37: ["Mixed Income Housing" on page 168](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 80: ["Development Near METRO Stations" on page 228](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 39: ["Fair Housing" on page 170](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 40: ["Homelessness" on page 171](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 41: ["Tenant Protections" on page 173](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 42: ["Expand Homeownership" on page 174](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 43: ["Housing Displacement" on page 176](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 44: ["Comprehensive Investments" on page 178](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 23: ["Coordinated Development Strategy" on page 149](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 45: ["Leverage Housing Programs to Benefit Community" on page 179](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 46: ["Healthy Housing" on page 180](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 47: ["Housing Quality" on page 181](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 34: ["Cultural Districts" on page 164](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 48: ["Freeway Remediation" on page 182](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 87: ["Northside" on page 237](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 98: ["Innovation Districts" on page 252](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 99: ["University District" on page 253](http://example.com)**
---
**Policy 100: ["Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255](http://example.com)**
---

<!-- page 86 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Economic Competitiveness

Local artisan painting tiles
in northeast Minneapolis
studio (Photo Courtesy of
Clay Squared to Infinity)

The global and national economy
is experiencing fundamental
changes, including technological
advances, manufacturing sector
shifts, changes in the distribution
and sale of goods, the movement
toward a knowledge-based economy,
and evolving resource limitations.
This ever-changing economy creates
opportunities and challenges that
impact the residents and businesses
of Minneapolis and the surrounding
region.

Minneapolis is operating from a rich base of
local assets that generate business and expand

<!-- page 87 -->
industries. Minneapolis and the surrounding region are home to 17 Fortune 500 companies and seven of the top 225 private companies. Minneapolis’ regional creative economy continues to be ranked in the top six in the Creative Vitality Index, with a score nearly four times higher than the national average. The University of Minnesota, ranked fourth in the nation for patent creation and the ninth-best U.S. public research institution, continues to lead in the development and creation of new technology, ideas and business. The state of Minnesota ranks first in the nation in the number of jobs per capita related to medical technology; and Forbes has called Minnesota the fastest-growing state for tech jobs.

Despite this vibrancy throughout the city and region, not everyone is benefiting, accessing or participating in this growth. Minneapolis is among the areas of the nation with the largest disparities between people of color and indigenous peoples compared with white people in level of education, employment and poverty rates. In Minneapolis, 83 percent of white non-Hispanics have more than a high school education, compared with 47 percent of black people and 45 percent of American Indians. Only 32 percent of Hispanics have more than a high school education (**Figure T4.1**).

Educational disparities become barriers to finding employment opportunities in the changing economy and are evident in unemployment and poverty rates. In Minneapolis, the unemployment rate for blacks and American Indians is approximately three times higher than it is for white non-Hispanics. The unemployment rate is 17 percent for blacks and 14 percent for American Indians, compared with fewer than 5 percent for white non-Hispanics (**Figure T4.2**). The poverty rate in Minneapolis for blacks is nearly 45 percent, 33 percent for American Indians, nearly 27 percent for Hispanics and approximately 12 percent for white non-Hispanics. The changing economy, particularly the loss of production and processing jobs, has meant a decrease in jobs available to those with a high school education or below that pay a living wage (**Figure T4.3**).

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 88 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Sources: Decennial Census, American Community Survey

The economy in Minneapolis needs to continue to grow and innovate, and people of color and indigenous people must have physical, personal and institutional access to this growth. This means developing and supporting an economic climate that helps sustain and nourish businesses. It means addressing the growing racial disparities in Minneapolis’ economy by identifying barriers that have reduced access to economic opportunities and by developing strategies and programs that ensure people of color and indigenous people can participate, compete in and succeed in the economy – ultimately ensuring that the growth of Minneapolis benefits everyone.

# Economic Competitiveness Policies:

**35 policies relate to Economic Competitiveness.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

**Policy 49: ["Educational and Economic Access" on page 184](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 50: ["Access to Technology" on page 186](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 51: ["Healthy Pre-K Development" on page 187](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 52: ["Human Capital and a Trained Workforce" on page 188](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 53: ["Quality of Life" on page 190](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 54: ["Supporting Economic Growth" on page 191](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 55: ["Business Innovation and Expansion" on page 192](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 56: ["Supporting Small Businesses" on page 193](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 57: ["Cluster Strategy" on page 195](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 80: ["Development Near METRO Stations" on page 228](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 23: ["Coordinated Development Strategy" on page 149](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 2: ["Access to Employment" on page 108](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 3: ["Production and Processing" on page 110](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 58: ["Business Districts and Corridors" on page 196](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 59: ["Downtown" on page 197](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 60: ["Intrinsic Value of Properties" on page 198](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 61: ["Environmental Justice and Green Zones" on page 199](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 62: ["Contaminated Sites" on page 201](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 20: ["Transit" on page 145](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 21: ["Freight" on page 147](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

**Policy 28: ["MSP Airport" on page 155](https://minneapolis2040.com)**

---

<!-- page 89 -->
# 2040 Topics: Economic Competitiveness

***

**Policy 22: “Downtown Transportation” on page 148**

**Policy 29: “Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts” on page 156**

**Policy 30: “Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts” on page 156**

**Policy 31: “Artists and Creative Workers” on page 159**

**Policy 63: “Food Access” on page 202**

**Policy 64: “Food Businesses” on page 204**

**Policy 65: “Urban Agriculture and Food Production” on page 206**

**Policy 90: “Technology in the Economy” on page 241**

**Policy 34: “Cultural Districts” on page 164**

**Policy 48: “Freeway Remediation” on page 182**

**Policy 87: “Northside” on page 237**

**Policy 98: “Innovation Districts” on page 252**

**Policy 99: “University District” on page 253**

**Policy 100: “Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255**

***

<!-- page 90 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Environmental Systems

Photo: Stormwater conveyance system at Heritage Park (Photo Courtesy of Mississippi Watershed Management Organization)

Minneapolis’ environmental system is an intricate network of living, engineered and climatic features working together. The health of the city is directly correlated to the strength of this ecosystem and how well these systems can thrive despite the pressures of climate change. As Minneapolis changes, the City has an excellent opportunity to improve the management, efficiency and equity of environmental systems to ensure that all people have a healthy and vibrant city to call home.

Minneapolis is among the top cities in the nation for cleanliness, health and fitness, and quality of life. To

<!-- page 91 -->
continue this legacy, the City must sustainably manage and protect water resources while preventing contaminants from polluting the water systems. Achieving this means maximizing waste reduction to meet the City’s zero-waste goals, supporting healthy ecosystems in and around surface waters, and increasing biodiversity to restore ecological habitats. It also means promoting large and small developments that enhance air, soil and water quality.

To sustain a high-quality and climate-resilient Minneapolis, the City must also aim for greater energy performance from the city’s physical structures and environmental systems. This means ensuring all buildings, infrastructure and modes of transportation significantly reduce energy consumption and carbon production. In addition, the City must ensure that all residents and businesses can access cost savings from energy efficiency and can enjoy the health and ecological benefits of a rich tree canopy and renewable energy sources.

As the environmental system evolves, the City must work urgently to support communities that experience hazardous and disparate environmental conditions. Of priority is the creation and implementation of environmental justice policies that eliminate stationary pollution sources, remediate contaminated brownfield sites, improve access to healthy foods, and address health hazards in housing. It’s important to have significant involvement from disenfranchised communities in this endeavor.

Additional supporting materials for Environmental Systems content can be found in Appendix F, Wastewater.

<<FIGURE>>

# Environmental Systems Policies:

**20 policies relate to Environmental Systems.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 66: [“Air Quality” on page 207](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 16: [“Environmental Impacts of Transportation” on page 138](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 67: [“Climate Resilient Communities” on page 209](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 68: [“Energy Efficient and Sustainable Buildings” on page 210](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 69: [“Renewable and Carbon-Free Energy” on page 212](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 61: [“Environmental Justice and Green Zones” on page 199](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 46: [“Healthy Housing” on page 180](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 71: [“Soil Health” on page 216](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 62: [“Contaminated Sites” on page 201](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 14: [“Tree Canopy and Urban Forest” on page 136](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 13: [“Landscaping” on page 134](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 70: [“Ecology and Habitat” on page 214](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 65: [“Urban Agriculture and Food Production” on page 206](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 72: [“Sustainable Water System Management” on page 217](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 73: [“Stormwater Management” on page 218](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 74: [“Integration of Water Management into Development” on page 220](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 75: [“Waste Reduction” on page 222](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 48: [“Freeway Remediation” on page 182](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 97: [“Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways” on page 250](https://example.com)**
---
**Policy 98: [“Innovation Districts” on page 252](https://example.com)**
---

<!-- page 92 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Public Health

*Photo: Farmers Market on Nicollet Avenue*

To remain a world-class city of healthy people and thriving communities, the City of Minneapolis must provide all residents with equitable opportunities for healthy development and lifestyles. Healthy development is impacted by a myriad of social determinants and has considerable long-term ramifications.

Inequities related to opportunities, conditions, policies and practices don't impact just individuals in isolation. Instead, entire generations are impacted by these inequities – especially those rooted in race, place and income – in healthy development and lifestyle. Inequities in social and economic factors are key contributors to health disparities; ultimately, these gaps need to close if equity in health outcomes is to advance. Social and economic disparities

<!-- page 93 -->
underpin health disparities from premature death rates to access to healthy food and from healthy youth development to housing stability.

# Public Health Policies:

**25 policies relate to Public Health.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

**Policy 61: ["Environmental Justice and Green Zones" on page 199](http://)**
***
**Policy 3: ["Production and Processing" on page 110](http://)**
***
**Policy 66: ["Air Quality" on page 207](http://)**
***
**Policy 62: ["Contaminated Sites" on page 201](http://)**
***
**Policy 67: ["Climate Resilient Communities" on page 209](http://)**
***
**Policy 46: ["Healthy Housing" on page 180](http://)**
***
**Policy 44: ["Comprehensive Investments" on page 178](http://)**
***
**Policy 51: ["Healthy Pre-K Development" on page 187](http://)**
***
**Policy 79: ["Healthy Youth Development" on page 227](http://)**
***
**Policy 49: ["Educational and Economic Access" on page 184](http://)**
***
**Policy 81: ["Social Connectedness" on page 230](http://)**
***
**Policy 82: ["Aging" on page 231](http://)**
***
**Policy 83: ["People with Disabilities" on page 233](http://)**
***
**Policy 84: ["Public Safety" on page 234](http://)**
***
**Policy 85: ["Access to Health, Social and Emergency Service" on page 235](http://)**
***
**Policy 63: ["Food Access" on page 202](http://)**
***
**Policy 86: ["Healthy Food in Institutions" on page 236](http://)**
***
**Policy 64: ["Food Businesses" on page 204](http://)**
***
**Policy 65: ["Urban Agriculture and Food Production" on page 206](http://)**
***
**Policy 18: ["Pedestrians" on page 142](http://)**
***
**Policy 19: ["Bicycling" on page 144](http://)**
***
**Policy 26: ["Vision Zero" on page 153](http://)**
***
**Policy 48: ["Freeway Remediation" on page 182](http://)**
***
**Policy 87: ["Northside" on page 237](http://)**
***
**Policy 98: ["Innovation Districts" on page 252](http://)**
***

<!-- page 94 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Heritage Preservation

Photo: Stone Arch Bridge and Mill City District (Photo by Krivit Photography, Courtesy of Meet Minneapolis)

Heritage preservation seeks to protect noteworthy buildings, structures, objects, and landscapes (“historic resources”) that together form the built environment. Protecting buildings in a city that is always changing can be challenging – and the City of Minneapolis has been experiencing change since its early settlement and will continue to transform well into the future.

These changes occur as part of the natural evolution of a city and as responses to property owners’ needs, economic booms or busts, and community desires, among other reasons. An essential task of heritage preservation in Minneapolis is to manage this transformation so the physical attributes of the city reflect its history and cultures, and so all residents have a sense of belonging and access

<!-- page 95 -->
to a cultural anchor. Preservation can not only celebrate who has lived in Minneapolis in the past, but also reflect who lives here today.

The field of heritage preservation is relatively young. While preservation work has deep roots, the National Historic Preservation Act did not become law until 1966, and Minneapolis’ Heritage Preservation Commission was not formed until 1972. Preservation work continues to evolve and mature. Historic buildings are no longer treated only as museum pieces, isolated from the people whose histories they embody. Today, new development projects are capitalizing on the sustainable value of reuse and successfully incorporating historic resources into their plans, ensuring the ongoing vitality of some historic structures. The identification and documentation of historic resources is more responsive to community concerns and acknowledges the need to better reflect a broader spectrum of cultural communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, and other communities that have traditionally been underrepresented. However, more changes lie ahead for the work of preservation.

A function of heritage preservation that’s becoming more relevant is its ability to help residents see themselves and their cultural identity within the city and empower them to more fully participate in civic life; thus, it’s critical for public engagement to include all interested groups in the preservation process, especially those whose history has been marginalized and whose places suffered deliberate disinvestment and removal. Minneapolis will work to ensure that residents of all cultures and backgrounds will have access to preservation resources while experiencing the economic, sociocultural, and emotional benefits of preservation.

# <<FIGURE>> Heritage Preservation Policies:

**10 policies relate to Heritage Preservation.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

**Policy 91: ["Heritage Preservation Outreach" on page 242](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 92: ["Identify and Evaluate Historic Resources" on page 243](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 60: ["Intrinsic Value of Properties" on page 198](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 93: ["Stewarding Historic Properties" on page 245](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 94: ["Heritage Preservation Regulation" on page 247](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 47: ["Healthy Housing" on page 180](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 95: ["Heritage Preservation Financial Incentives" on page 248](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 96: ["Cultural Heritage and Preservation Recognition" on page 249](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 34: ["Cultural Districts" on page 164](https://example.com)**
***
**Policy 100: ["Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255](https://example.com)**
***

<!-- page 96 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Arts and Culture

Photo: Artists: Keri Pickett, Jason Takahashi, and Charlie Thayer. Against the Grain, Light display on Gold Medal Flour silos at Northern Spark (Photo Courtesy of Make It MSP)

Arts and cultural offerings are abundant in the city and the vast number of diverse artists and creative workers contribute greatly to the city’s vibrancy, quality of life, and to the local and regional economy.

The 2018 Minneapolis Creative Vitality Index noted that for-profit creative sales contributed $5.1 billion into Minneapolis’ economy—nearly 9.2 times the size of Minneapolis’ sports sector revenues. Nonprofit arts and cultural revenues provided an additional $346 million. Creative jobs in Minneapolis have grown by 5.1% since 2014 and account for almost 5% of the city’s jobs. Those 22,039 creative jobs include 40 job types in 72 different industries. Home to 27% of the region’s creative workforce, Minneapolis is a standout in the creative sector. These facts demonstrate the importance of supporting the growth and sustainability of the creative sector to maintaining

<!-- page 97 -->
Minneapolis’ economic competitiveness.

The creative sector includes workers and organizations engaged in the arts and cultural fields such as performance, dance, music, history, and the literary and visual arts; but creative work is also represented and embedded in a broad range of industries and disciplines, such as marketing, media and communications, and design.

Racial disparities that persist in Minneapolis’ workforce and economy also persist in the creative sector. Despite job growth of 4.9% in the metropolitan area since 2014, people of color and indigenous people make up only 13% of these creative workers, compared to 17% of all workers. Nationally, people of color make up 30% of the creative workforce, and 31% of all workers. Considerable work is needed to ensure Minneapolis’ successes in the creative sector and economy extend to people of color and indigenous peoples.

Key to the success of a thriving creative sector and economy is a community that recognizes both the economic values, as well as the sector’s contributions to city livability, empathy, and civility. Activities that engage residents in placemaking and other grassroots, life long, opportunities to create art can build this awareness.

The city’s spaces where artists and creative workers come together to work, produce, collaborate, practice, and perform—such as arts districts, historic and cultural corridors and other offices, studios, and venues—contribute a great deal to the development of communities. For these places and groups, the concentration of creative energy is critical to their ability to thrive. Displacement of artists and creative workers due to development pressure not only results in the loss of art and creative jobs, but the vibrancy found in the proximity.

The city benefits greatly from the contributions of artists and creative workers to public spaces, community development, public health, affordable housing, and transportation programing. This is why arts and culture policies can be found not just in this chapter, but throughout the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

# <<FIGURE>> Arts and Culture Policies:

**9 policies relate to Arts and Culture.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 29: “Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts” on page 156**
---
**Policy 30: “Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts” on page 156**
---
**Policy 31: “Artists and Creative Workers” on page 159**
---
**Policy 32: “Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis’ Arts and Culture” on page 158**
---
**Policy 7: “Public Realm” on page 122**
---
**Policy 53: “Quality of Life” on page 190**
---
**Policy 34: “Cultural Districts” on page 164**
---
**Policy 99: “University District” on page 253**
---
**Policy 100: “Place-based Neighborhood Engagement” on page 255**
---

<!-- page 98 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Parks and Open Space

*Photo: The Commons Park adjacent to US Bank Stadium (Photo Courtesy of Meet Minneapolis)*

Minneapolis is known throughout the country as a city with a high quality of life. One of the reasons for this is the abundance of open spaces and parks. Envisioned 125 years ago, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) managed park system delights Minneapolis’ residents and visitors.

In 2017, Minneapolis had the repeat honor of being recognized as the Nation’s Best Park System by the Trust for Public Land; Minneapolis’ parks encompass the city’s defining lakes and river banks and include features of astonishing beauty, historical significance and ecological wonder, all within a thriving urban setting. The Minneapolis Park System is anchored by the Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway and includes a multitude of neighborhood

<!-- page 99 -->
parks that provide important gathering and recreation space. Several parks and trails in Minneapolis are also part of the premier Regional Parks System.

Minneapolis residents also benefit from the presence of other open spaces such as school facilities, greenways, gardens, and plazas. Open spaces and parks make up a collection of formal and informal landscapes used in numerous ways by the people of Minneapolis.

The policies below address existing open spaces and parks in Minneapolis, and ones that could be created in the future to enhance quality of life and to improve accessibility to parks. As the city continues to grow, it must support the parks system while enhancing other open spaces and public gathering spots in order to ensure recreational opportunities, preserve and enhance ecological function, improve human mental and physical health, and support economic development and tourism.

Additional supporting materials for Parks and Open Space content can be found in Appendix H, Regional Parks and Trails.

<<FIGURE>>

# Parks and Open Space Policies:

**13 policies relate to Parks and Open Space.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 76: "New Parks" on page 224**
---
**Policy 78: "Park Design and Programming" on page 226**
---
**Policy 77: "Park Access" on page 225**
---
**Policy 9: "Open Spaces in New Development" on page 127**
---
**Policy 7: "Public Realm" on page 122**
---
**Policy 14: "Tree Canopy and Urban Forest" on page 136**
---
**Policy 53: "Quality of Life" on page 190**
---
**Policy 70: "Ecology and Habitat" on page 214**
---
**Policy 72: "Sustainable Water System Management" on page 217**
---
**Policy 73: "Stormwater Management" on page 218**
---
**Policy 97: "Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways" on page 250**
---
**Policy 99: "University District" on page 253**
---
**Policy 100: "Place-based Neighborhood Engagement" on page 255**
---

<!-- page 100 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Public Services and Facilities

*Photo: City of Minneapolis Hiawatha Maintenance Facility*

When the City develops policies, enacts ordinances, creates programs or deploys resources, its activities have a direct effect on residents, businesses and visitors. To be effective, the City needs to continually explore refinements and new tools to ensure it provides services in a streamlined, accessible, and equitable manner.

As the City’s population and employment increase, the needs for public services and buildings will evolve. Some agencies and departments will expand services, while others will be looking for new ways of using facilities that are no longer needed for their original purpose. The City of Minneapolis will plan carefully for its own facilities needs, and will play a role in encouraging public agencies to explore opportunities for sharing facilities where the community

<!-- page 101 -->
and financial benefits are apparent. In the case that a public building closes altogether or a new facility is built, the City will ensure that the re-use or establishment of that building is consistent with the land use policies of this plan and is informed by public input. The City will also use its own properties as a model for private development, demonstrating the value of environmental sustainability, historic preservation, an engaging public realm, and the use of high quality materials.

<<FIGURE>>

## Public Services and Facilities Policies:

**4 policies relate to Public Services and Facilities.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 88: ["Public Services Policy" on page 239](dummy-link)**
---
**Policy 89: ["Technology in the City Enterprise" on page 240](dummy-link)**
---
**Policy 3: ["Production and Processing" on page 110](dummy-link)**
---
**Policy 84: ["Public Safety" on page 234](dummy-link)**
---

<!-- page 102 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Technology and Innovation

*Photo: New Flyer Electric Demo Bus (Photo by Metro Transit)*

Forbes magazine has called Minnesota the fastest-growing state for technology sector jobs. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (MN DEED) has projected 16,000 technology sector jobs by 2022 in the state, a 15 percent increase from 2017 levels.

Minneapolis, specifically downtown, is experiencing high demand for office space for technology companies and is home to a growing number of established and new technology companies. This presents a strength to build on, and an opportunity to grow employment in a high-demand sector.

At the same time, advances in and adoption of technology are providing tools to better connect people with their

<!-- page 103 -->
government and to better inform decision-making. While these tools do not and should not replace in-person interaction, Minneapolis will embrace technology that can supplement traditional forms of interaction and make City government more proactive, accessible, and sustainable. The City will also work to ensure that residents have the technology tools and skills to participate in the economy and civic life.

## <<FIGURE>> Technology and Innovation Policies:

**7 policies relate to Technology and Innovation.**
Please refer to the pages listed below to read the content of each policy.

---
**Policy 50: ["Access to Technology" on page 186](javascript:void\(0\))**
---
**Policy 90: ["Technology in the Economy" on page 241](javascript:void\(0\))**
---
**Policy 89: ["Technology in the City Enterprise" on page 240](javascript:void\(0\))**
---
**Policy 25: ["Innovations in Transportation and Infrastructure" on page 152](javascript:void\(0\))**
---
**Policy 24: ["Shared Mobility" on page 151](javascript:void\(0\))**
---
**Policy 98: ["Innovation Districts" on page 252](javascript:void\(0\))**
---
**Policy 99: ["University District" on page 253](javascript:void\(0\))**
---

<!-- page 104 -->
# Plan Policies

Each policy supports one or more of the goals and topics of the plan.

<!-- page 105 -->
#### POLICY 1

## Access to Housing
### Increase the supply of housing and its diversity of location and types.

<<FIGURE>>

**The population of Minneapolis is growing.** Housing demand exceeds supply in many areas of the city, which has resulted in rising rents and sale prices. Increased demand for housing is accompanied by demographic changes that affect the types of housing Minneapolis residents will need between now and 2040. The people of Minneapolis and the region as a whole are becoming older and more culturally diverse. In many parts of the city, aging single-family home dwellers do not have the option to move into multifamily housing close to their established social support networks. This further restricts access to single-family homes for households with growing families who desire that housing type and would prefer to stay in the city.

Areas of our city that lack housing choice today were built that way intentionally through zoning regulations and racially-restrictive federal housing policies during the first half of the twentieth century. Today, our city reflects those past policies which determined, based on their race, where generations of Minneapolis residents had access to housing. These policies and regulations left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its people. Areas of Minneapolis with higher densities and a mix of land uses experienced disinvestment, in part because banks were not lending in these areas. On the outskirts of the city, a post-depression development pattern emerged with little variation in housing types and density, and few areas for commercial development. Today, the zoning map in these areas remains largely unchanged from the era of intentional racial segregation. This comprehensive plan is an opportunity to foster inclusive communities free from barriers to housing choice.

Housing cost and housing choice, including diversity of housing location, and diversity of housing type, all influence the guidance found in the Future Land Use and Built Form maps. Strategies outlined below each address the issue of housing choice in a different way. The Built Form map on its own cannot affect housing cost, but allowing for growth is a prerequisite to addressing market rate housing production as well as affordable housing production and preservation. Allowing for an increase in the overall housing supply is intended to result in overall lower housing costs than would occur if no more supply was built. The intent of each of these built form strategies is outlined below.

* Increase housing choice and housing supply by allowing multifamily housing on select public transit routes, with higher densities along high-frequency routes and near METRO stations.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 106 -->
## Plan Policies

* In neighborhood interiors that contain a mix of housing types from single-family homes to apartments, increase housing choice and supply by allowing new housing within that existing range.

<<FIGURE>>

* In neighborhood interiors farthest from downtown that today contain primarily single-family homes, increase housing choice and supply by allowing up to three dwelling units on an individual lot.

<<FIGURE>>

* Increase housing choice and supply by allowing the highest-density housing in and near Downtown.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 107 -->
### ACTION STEPS:

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to increase the supply of housing and its diversity of location and types.**

a. Allow housing to be built in all areas of the city, except in Production and Distribution areas.

b. Allow the highest-density housing in and near Downtown.

c. Allow multifamily housing on public transit routes, with higher densities along high-frequency routes and near METRO stations.

d. In neighborhood interiors that contain a mix of housing types from single family homes to apartments, allow new housing within that existing range.

e. In neighborhood interiors farthest from downtown that today contain primarily single-family homes, achieve greater housing supply and diversity by allowing small-scale residential structures with up to three dwelling units on an individual lot.

f. Encourage inclusion of units that can accommodate families in new and rehabilitated multifamily housing developments.

<!-- page 108 -->
**POLICY 2**

# Access to Employment
## Support employment growth downtown and in places well-served by public transportation.

<<FIGURE>>

**The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development estimates that Minneapolis had 318,500 jobs in 2015**, and the Metropolitan Council projects that the City’s employment will grow by 41,500 by 2040. Much of this job growth will happen in downtown Minneapolis, which is appropriate given the role of the central business district as the economic and transportation hub of the region. Growing employment downtown will require continued investment in the multimodal transportation system that makes downtown accessible to workers. It also means ensuring that land downtown is used as efficiently as possible.

Outside of downtown, non-production employment growth should be focused on areas well-served by public transportation. The City should continue to support large employers such as hospitals, universities, and cultural institutions, while ensuring that expansions of those facilities do not inhibit progress on other plan goals, including increasing the supply of housing.

The Future Land Use and Built Form maps allow greater development intensities in these areas that have or will have frequent and fast transit connections through the following actions:

* Increase access to employment by allowing a variety of job-producing uses on select public transit routes, with higher densities along high-frequency routes and near METRO stations.

<<FIGURE>>

* Increase access to employment by allowing the highest concentration of jobs- producing uses in and near Downtown.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 109 -->
### ACTION STEPS:

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support employment growth downtown and in places well-served by public transportation.**

a. Establish minimum development densities for downtown and areas served by regional transit lines to ensure that enough land is available to accommodate projected employment growth.

b. Continue to allow office and institutional uses where they currently exist throughout the city.

c. Guide new office and institutional uses to locations well-served by public transportation.

d. Encourage large medical, educational, and cultural institutions to grow within their existing footprint, especially where territorial expansion would result in a reduction of housing stock.

<!-- page 110 -->
**POLICY 3**

# Production and Processing
## Expand and maintain areas for production, processing, and distribution of products, services, and ideas.

<<FIGURE>>

**A healthy local and regional economy requires space for production and processing businesses.** Examples of these types of businesses include, but are not limited to, medical device and electronic instrument manufacturing, breweries and distilleries, food production, metal fabrication, and distribution and fulfillment. Production and processing businesses provide economic opportunities for people without a college degree by offering higher wages than comparable jobs in the retail, accommodation, and food service industries. In Minneapolis, less than half of the Black, American Indian, and Hispanic population has more than a high school education, compared to 83 percent of White, non-Hispanic residents. These educational disparities create barriers for finding employment opportunities that pay a living wage. Production and processing businesses in the region have average monthly starting wages for workers of color that are twice as high as retail businesses and nearly 2.5 times that of accommodation and food service businesses.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 111 -->
While this plan calls for improving educational access for the City’s residents as a strategy for improving economic standing, the City should also continue to set aside space for production and processing businesses to ensure that living-wage jobs in industries with minimal environmental impacts will be available to Minneapolis residents, especially people of color, indigenous people, and those without a college degree. If the City is to achieve the goals of eliminate disparities and living-wage jobs through the location and establishment of production and processing businesses, it is a prerequisite that lands for these uses be protected from the encroachment of other land uses, particularly housing, that outbid jobs-producing uses for land. To achieve this outcome the Future Land Use map designates Production and Processing Areas that are well-suited to support production and processing businesses, specifically excluding housing and other non-production uses.

Some areas that have been historically industrial are not well-suited to support new production and processing businesses because the existing building stock does not meet the needs of modern production businesses, and they lack the contiguous land to make substantial redevelopment feasible. This plan designates such areas as Mixed Use Production Areas, allowing both production and non-production uses to co-exist

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to expand and maintain areas for production, processing, and distribution of products, services, and ideas.**

a. Designate Production and Processing Areas that comprise large contiguous tracts of land historically used for industrial purposes, that are well-served by transportation infrastructure for both people and freight, and that contain building stock suitable for production and processing businesses to expand access to higher wage job opportunities.

b. Prioritize use of land in Production and Processing Areas for production, processing and last mile distribution of products and services uses that have minimal or no air, water, or noise pollution impacts, and that provide quality living-wage jobs.

c. Identify and limit uses in Production and Processing Areas that do not provide a high concentration of high quality, low-impact production and processing jobs.

d. Encourage infill development on underdeveloped properties in Production and Processing areas.

e. Designate Production Mixed Use Areas in parts of the city that have been historically industrial, but that are not substantial opportunities for locating and growing low-impact production, processing, and distribution businesses.

f. Allow both production and non-production land uses in Production Mixed Use Areas.

g. Establish land use regulations to encourage the adaptive reuse of older industrial and commercial property in Production Mixed Use areas, including

<!-- page 112 -->
### Plan Policies

reuse that results in a change to non-production uses.

h. Improve transit, bicycle and pedestrian access to areas of employment, including Production and Processing Areas and Production Mixed Use Areas.

i. Develop guidance for future development in Production and Processing Areas and Production Mixed Use Areas served by regional transit lines in order to ensure a minimum level of development and job intensities.

j. To ensure employment opportunities are provided in areas well-served by transit and mixed-use development, allow production and processing uses in Commercial Mixed Use areas while controlling for potential negative externalities through building and site design. This includes potentially designating certain identified areas to emphasize employment goals.

k. Accommodate facilities needed for municipal operations in both Production and Distribution Areas and Production Mixed Use Areas.

l. Identify and limit new heavy industrial uses that harm human health or the environment throughout the city.

m. Continue and expand incentives and technical assistance to existing production and processing businesses to leverage investments in cleaner, safer, more energy efficient and sustainable technology in order to reduce pollution.

n. Enforce regulations related to pollution and nuisance ordinances.

o. Focus business assistance for targeted low-impact industries that offer new opportunities for historically unemployed and underemployed residents.

p. p. Promote business investment and expansion through site assembly, clearance and redevelopment in strategic areas.

q. Develop detailed planning guidance for Production Mixed Use areas, particularly those experiencing rapid growth and change, to better define the future of commercial and production space in those locations.

r. Prohibit schools except training centers that require facilities zoned for production and processing from being built in Production and Processing areas.

<!-- page 113 -->
### POLICY 4

# Access to Commercial Goods and Services
## Improve access to goods and services via walking, biking and transit.

<<FIGURE>>

**Today, 90 percent of passenger miles traveled in Minneapolis are in personal automobiles.** While a portion of these trips are to school and work, residents in many parts of the city have no choice but to drive long distances to access regular goods and services such as grocery stores. Nationally, 45 percent of daily trips are taken for shopping and errands. In most of Minneapolis, demand for retail is much higher than supply, indicating an opportunity to make retail more convenient for everyone and thereby reduce car trips and greenhouse gas emissions. The city also has 11 low-income census tracts in which residents live more than a mile from a full-service grocery store.

Achieving the City’s goal of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 requires reducing the number of daily car trips by 37%. This ambitious goal is possible only if more people have access to daily needs via frequent, fast, and reliable transit. Building more housing near transit provides the opportunity for people to live without a car, or with fewer cars in each household, helping to work toward a carbon-free future. This will help achieve the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goal, improve health through increased physical activity, and enrich the quality of life in our communities. The Future Land Use map allows or requires commercial activity, while the Built Form map allows greater development intensities in areas that have or will have frequent and fast transit connections and high-quality bicycling and walking facilities as outlined below:

* Increase access to Commercial Goods and Services by allowing multifamily housing on select public transit routes, with higher densities along high-frequency routes and near METRO stations; and by expanding opportunities for commercial activity particularly on certain corridors, while requiring commercial activity in key locations.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 114 -->
• Increase access to Commercial Goods and Services by allowing the highest-density housing in and near Downtown, while requiring commercial activity in key locations.

<<FIGURE>>

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve access to goods and services via walking, biking and transit.**

a. Allow commercial uses where they currently exist throughout the city.

b. Designate additional areas for commercial uses in parts of the city where demand for retail goods and services exceeds the supply, and that are well-served by public transportation.

<!-- page 115 -->
c. Allow property owners to request expansion of commercial areas where such expansion would improve access to goods and services via walking, biking, and transit.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

d. Require commercial retail to be incorporated into new buildings in select areas of the city with the highest residential densities, highest pedestrian traffic, and most frequent transit service.

e. Allow for increased housing supply within and adjacent to Commercial areas.

f. Allow a full range of uses in Commercial areas intended to provide goods and services to surrounding communities.

g. Utilize regulatory tools to minimize the impacts that commercial uses have on nearby residential uses.

h. Develop new analytical frameworks and tools to accurately track and study the dynamics of urban retail in order to guide the development, revision, and deployment of City programs, tools, and regulations.

i. To ensure employment opportunities are provided in areas well-served by transit and mixed-use development, allow production and processing uses in Commercial Mixed Use areas while controlling for potential negative externalities through building and site design. This includes potentially designating certain identified areas to emphasize employment goals.

<!-- page 116 -->
### POLICY 5

## Visual Quality of New Development
### Ensure a high-quality and distinctive physical environment in all parts of the city through building and site design requirements for both large and small projects.

<<FIGURE>>

**The design of new buildings is influenced by several factors**, including the purpose and use of the building, its context, the architect's approach, project budget, construction type, building code requirements, land use policy and regulations, and stakeholder input. The City does not dictate architectural styles for new buildings, however through thoughtful and creative distribution of building massing and transitions, coupled with the application of durable, sustainable, and high quality building materials, and building openings such as doors and windows, the City can help ensure a high-quality and distinctive physical environment that advances the Minneapolis 2040 goals.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure a high-quality and distinctive physical environment in all parts of the city through building and site design requirements for both large and small projects.**

a. Allow and encourage a variety of architectural styles.

b. Require multiple buildings on development sites outside of the downtown core that encompass most of an entire block or block frontage to increase visual interest. On sites in the downtown core buildings that encompass an entire city block are encouraged to use massing that is responsive to the human-scale and provides pedestrian through-block connections through existing super blocks or to re-establish the street grid.

c. Ensure that exterior building materials are durable, sustainable, create a lasting addition to the built environment, and contribute positively to the public realm and reflect existing context.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 117 -->
### Plan Policies

d. Require that the appearance and materials of the rear and side walls of new buildings are similar to and compatible with the front of the building.

<<FIGURE>>

e. Require adequate distribution of windows and architectural features in order to create visual interest.

f. Consider design approaches that encourage creative solutions for transitions between varying intensities of building types and land uses.

g. Apply design standards, guidance, and regulation consistently across the city regardless of market conditions or rent structure of development.

h. Promote an attractive environment by minimizing visual clutter and confusion caused by a proliferation of signage; ensuring that signage is appropriately scaled to the pedestrian experience.

i. Regulate the height and bulk of buildings as represented on the built form map.

j. Require the screening of utilities, communication, transformers, and other service connections to buildings. Burying connections and lines is encouraged.

k. Encourage roof lines and upper levels of tall buildings to be articulated with a distinguishable design.

l. Require the podiums of tall buildings to reflect the human scale, with design elements and active uses on the ground level.

m. Develop design guidance specific to encouraging high quality tall building construction.

n. Encourage institutional uses and public buildings and facilities to incorporate architectural and site design that is reflective of their civic importance and that identifies their role as focal points for the community.

o. Regulate setbacks, orientation, pattern, materials, height, and scale of small-scale residential buildings to ensure consistency with built-form guidance and existing context.

p. Encourage detached garages and discourage attached garages for small scale residential buildings, ensure that detached garages are accessory in size and use to the primary small scale residential building.

q. Prohibit driveways for new small scale residential buildings on blocks that have alley access.

r. Discourage buildings outside of the Downtown core from spanning over alleys or other public rights of way.

s. Balance visual quality of new development, including articulation of buildings, with energy efficiency of new buildings.

<!-- page 118 -->
**POLICY 6**

## Pedestrian-Oriented Building and Site Design
### Regulate land uses, building design, and site design of new development consistent with a transportation system that prioritizes walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and lastly motor vehicle use.

<<FIGURE>>

**The City of Minneapolis Complete Streets policy prioritizes walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and lastly motor vehicle use.** Building and site design of new development should follow this same hierarchy in order to encourage sustainable modes of transportation and improve health outcomes. The number and location of entrances, the size and distribution of windows, building setbacks from the street, landscaping, along with building design elements such as lighting and awnings, all contribute to the pedestrian experience. Site layout is also important to facilitating pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. Factors such as the building location, parking lots, driveways, driveways, open space, plazas, and pocket parks merit careful attention.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to regulate land uses, building design, and site design of new development consistent with a transportation system that prioritizes walking first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and lastly motor vehicle use.**

a. Orient buildings and building entrances to the street. Encourage multiple entrances to multi-family residential buildings. The number of entrances in non-residential uses should increase in proportion to the length of the building and be located along main corridors or at the street corner.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 119 -->
b. Encourage multiple storefront bays with direct connections to the sidewalk where active or commercial ground floor uses are required.

c. Require windows and window treatments on buildings that allow clear views into and out of the building.

d. Ensure that buildings incorporate design elements that eliminate long stretches of blank, inactive exterior walls through provision of windows, multiple entrance doors, green walls, and architectural details.

e. Integrate components in building designs that offer seasonal protection to pedestrians, such as awnings and canopies, to encourage pedestrian activity along the street.

<<FIGURE>>

f. Consider the arrangement of buildings within a site to minimize the generation of wind currents at ground level.

g. Encourage building placement that where possible enables solar access and allows light and air into the site and surrounding properties and supports energy efficient lighting.

h. Encourage building placement and massing design that considers the impact of shadowing, particularly on public spaces, recognizing that extreme seasons make shaded areas alternately desirable at different times of year.

i. Coordinate site designs and public right-of-way improvements to provide adequate sidewalk space for pedestrian movement, curb extensions, street trees, street lighting, landscaping, street furniture, sidewalk cafes, and other elements of active pedestrian areas.

j. Coordinate with Metro Transit to ensure that the design of new buildings supports transit operations.

k. Implement and expand regulations and incentives that promote bicycling, such as the provision of secured storage for bikes near building entrances, storage lockers, and changing and shower facilities.

l. Eliminate the requirement for off-street parking minimums throughout the city, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new supply being built, and re-evaluate established parking maximums to better align with City goals.

m. Discourage access to and egress from parking ramps off major corridors, instead encouraging access at mid-block locations and at right angles to minimize disruptions to pedestrian flow at the street level.

<<FIGURE>>

n. Below grade parking is encouraged.

<!-- page 120 -->
o. Require above-grade parking structures to be designed with active uses along the street walls and with sufficient clearance and floor grades on all levels to allow adaptive reuse in the future.

p. Discourage the establishment of and minimize the size of surface parking lots. Mitigate the negative effect of parking lots through screening, landscaping, minimizing curb cuts, sufficient number of down-cast, glare-free light fixture, and other measures.

q. Encourage the design of parking areas in ways that minimize their contribution to the urban heat island.

r. Prohibit the establishment of new drive-throughs and gas stations.

s. Prohibit the establishment of new auto repair facilities and other auto-oriented uses in areas designated Neighborhood, Community, and Destination Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Map

t. Mitigate the impacts of auto repair and other auto-oriented uses on the pedestrian environment through building and site design requirements.

<<FIGURE>>

u. Encourage safe and convenient pedestrian connections through development sites and mid-block connections in the downtown core.

v. Limit, consolidate, and narrow driveways along pedestrian routes. In addition, discourage driveway access on Goods and Services Corridors.

w. Consider topography, site grading, rainwater management, and rainwater conveyance system so that snowmelt is directed away from roads and pedestrian areas to avoid icy conditions

x. Discourage multiple curb cuts within a development for automobile passenger drop off and pick-up or any other use.

<!-- page 121 -->
# Plan Policies

y. Encourage building designs that reflect the unique site and context where they lie within the city.

z. Encourage building elements that provide educational opportunities for school-age children.

aa. Encourage openable doors, walls and windows on active first floors that create a connection between indoor and outdoor spaces, especially the public realm, during appropriate weather.

ab. Limit self-storage businesses to integration within active use buildings.

ac. In Land Use areas other than Production & Processing, require buildings with inactive uses, such as storage facilities or adult entertainment establishments, to be screened with publicly appropriate active uses along street faces or to be located above or below street level.

<!-- page 122 -->
#### POLICY 7

## Public Realm
### Proactively improve the public realm to support a pedestrian friendly, high-quality and distinctive built environment.

<<FIGURE>>

**The quality of the public realm – streets, sidewalks, plazas, green spaces, landscaping, public art, heritage streets and other publicly-accessible spaces – influences our city’s livability, sustainability, safety, transit, bikeability, walkability and health.** A vibrant and high-performing public realm also contributes to the region’s competitiveness and the image of the city, attracting people to live in, work in, and visit Minneapolis.

The City of Minneapolis has multiple planning processes and guidelines for designing within the public realm such as the Downtown Public Realm Framework and Access Minneapolis. These documents inform and coordinate the work of public and private entities that shape the public realm. Other programs target specific needs of users in the public realm, from providing safe and healthy environments to determining the aesthetic quality and sense of place in the City of Minneapolis.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to proactively improve the public realm in order to proactively improve the public realm to support a pedestrian friendly, high-quality and distinctive built environment.**

a. Develop a framework for public realm improvements citywide that guides landscaping, street furnishing, street lighting, trees, heritage streets, and other improvement to the public realm and pedestrian environment.

b. Implement public realm improvements called for in the citywide framework in conjunction with transportation investments, such as street reconstructions and new transit lines according to objective and equitable criteria.

c. Require developers to implement public realm improvements called for in the citywide framework in conjunction with approvals for building construction and site modification.

d. Establish processes according to objective and equitable criteria for implementing public realm improvements called for in the citywide framework in areas not targeted for any transportation investments or new buildings.

e. Enhance the pedestrian environment through physical interpretation of history, public art, and placemaking.

f. Explore and implement new ways to improve the public realm via pilot or creative projects, utilizing public and private partnerships when appropriate, while ensuring public access.

g. Encourage private investment in and maintenance of public space through City programs.

<!-- page 123 -->
h. Encourage the location and design of pedestrian spaces to be climate-sensitive, allowing for shelter, window breaks, and sun access or shading depending on seasonal protection needs.

i. Consider alternative funding options for public realm improvements to ensure that all areas of the city have opportunities to benefit.

j. Investigate new approaches and strategies to implement pedestrian scale street lighting to neighborhood interiors.

k. Pilot active street furnishings that encourage spontaneous exercise.

<!-- page 124 -->
### POLICY 8

## Public Safety Through Environmental Design
### Use design principles that ensure a safe and welcoming environment when designing all projects that impact the public realm, including open spaces and parks, on publicly-owned and private land.

<<FIGURE>>

**Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a commonly-used term for designing the built environment to contribute to a sense of safety.** The four elements of CPTED are: natural surveillance and visibility; lighting; territorial reinforcement and space delineation, and natural access control. The City of Minneapolis requires all new development to be designed using CPTED principles and encourages the renovation of existing development to conform to CPTED principles. This includes development projects that are both publicly and privately owned as well as those that impact the public realm such as open spaces and parks.

A common best practice of CPTED orients buildings, entrances, and circulation or movement patterns to the street to function as “eyes” that watch over street activity. The success in this approach often lies in the kind of activity that looks out over the street. For example, small scale neighborhood commercial uses located up to the sidewalk provide the most vigilant and alert security force available; owners and tenants have a vested interest in watching over their immediate surroundings. The daily presence of a manager, owner, or tenant brings the stability and security of commercial activity to a neighborhood. Stores or services can turn isolated areas into hubs for local neighborhood residents.

Features of CPTED building design include incorporating lighting strategically into site and structure design, providing unobstructed views across the property and to and from the public realm, and unobstructed windows for visual surveillance. Expanses of blank walls are avoided and parking is placed behind the building, so as not separate the building from the street.

<!-- page 125 -->
## ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to use design principles that ensure a safe and welcoming environment when designing all projects that impact the public realm, including open spaces and parks, on publicly-owned and private land.**

a. Integrate “eyes on the street” concepts into building design through the use of windows to foster safer and more successful areas throughout the city.

b. Orient new development to the street, or other public ways, to foster safe neighborhoods.

<<FIGURE>>

c. Design the site, lighting, landscaping, and buildings to promote natural observation and maximize the opportunities for people to observe adjacent spaces and public sidewalks.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 126 -->
d. Provide on-site, non-glare producing lighting at all building entrances and along walkways that maintains a minimum acceptable level of security while not creating excessive lighting of the site.

<<FIGURE>>

e. Locate landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, fencing, and building features to clearly guide pedestrian movement on or through the site and to provide clear delineation between public and private spaces.

<<FIGURE>>

f. Use innovative building designs, window locations, lighting, and landscaping to limit or eliminate the opportunity for vandalism.

g. Locate entrances, exits, signs, fencing, landscaping, and lighting to distinguish between public and private areas, control access, and to guide people coming to and going from the site.

h. Involve Fire, Police, and Emergency Preparedness staff in the development review process.

i. Encourage the renovation of existing developments to conform to CPTED principles.

<!-- page 127 -->
### POLICY 9

# Open Spaces in New Development
## Create new open spaces and plazas in conjunction with new development.

<<FIGURE>>

**Well designed, accessible open spaces provide health benefits by offering amenities for exercise and peaceful areas to enjoy.** They can provide environmental benefits by supporting plant and animal life and by improving natural systems. Open spaces can educate by revealing history or providing a window into understanding the natural environment.

The city contains numerous open spaces which are not official parks or recreation areas, yet are important elements in the built environment. These include plazas and open spaces that were constructed in conjunction with buildings, providing publicly-accessible outdoor amenities. The City of Minneapolis will continue to encourage open spaces to be integrated into new development.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to create new open spaces and plazas in conjunction with new development.**

a. Encourage the creation of equitable publicly-accessible open spaces and plazas that connect to other public or semi-public spaces through incentives and requirements.

b. Improve standards for public plazas and other non-park open spaces that give specific guidance on scale, design, and maintenance of seating, lighting, landscaping, and other amenities.

c. Ensure that the design of public plazas and open spaces utilize climate-sensitive design principles, do not harm archeological/historic resources, and support other features that further the goals of this plan.

d. Encourage design of open spaces and plazas that are interconnected across developments, facilitate public access to, movement along, and views of public amenities such as parks, trails, and historic and natural features.

<!-- page 128 -->
## POLICY 10

### Street Grid
#### Restore and maintain the traditional street and sidewalk grid.

**Our city’s transportation system is largely based upon a traditional street grid, which provides a high degree of connectivity.** There are natural breaks to this grid, such as rivers, lakes and creeks, as well as human-made features such as parks and those created by land development patterns. Over time, modifications to the street grid to accommodate new development and freeway construction have resulted in reduced connectivity for all modes of travel. Minneapolis will work to rectify this by restoring the street grid as opportunities arise.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to restore and maintain the traditional street and sidewalk grid.**

a. Explore options to restore the street grid or add new streets and sidewalks to larger blocks or tracts of land as part of new development or redevelopment.

<<FIGURE>>

b. Consider elimination of gaps in the street grid when conducting development and area-wide planning.

c. Improve local transportation across freeways, including improving pedestrian, bicycle, and transit accommodations across existing bridges and promoting adequate spacing and connectivity of local streets crossing the freeways.

d. Maintain the City’s ownership of streets in order to preserve the network of city streets and arterials.

<!-- page 129 -->
# Plan Policies

e. Restore the street grid when appropriate, taking advantage of opportunities as they arise in conjunction with new development and through capital projects. Explore options to proactively dedicate capital improvement funds to reconnect the street grid, so resources are already available when opportunities arise. Where restoring auto access is no longer feasible or aligned with other City plans, the City will pursue restoring streets for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit users.

f. Explore ways to reconnect neighborhoods divided by freeways and highways.

g. Collaborate with Metro Transit to implement technologies to improve the flow of traffic along light-rail transit routes and bus rapid transit routes while maintaining safety for all users consistent with the Complete Streets policy.

<!-- page 130 -->
### POLICY 11

## Skyways
### Improve the Skyway system that connects buildings Downtown.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**Downtown skyways have been the source of debate for decades.** They are beloved in extreme and inclement weather for their seamless indoor connections and are the focus of ire for their lack of navigability, their inaccessibility from the street, and their impact to street level vibrancy. Access to the skyways can be improved through additional high-quality connection points to the street, specifically at primary transit and pedestrian routes. Navigability can be improved through designs that provide transparency to the street. Tying skyway business activity to street level business activity while limiting skyway expansion can help create opportunity to improve street level vibrancy.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ilmprove the Skyway system that connects buildings Downtown.**

a. Require newly-established retail uses in buildings connected by skyways to be located primarily on the ground floor with an entrance facing the street.

<<FIGURE>>

b. Require transparency of skyway walls that meet bird-safe glazing definition in order to provide views into and to the outside that help users orient themselves.

c. Require uniform skyway hours of operation.

<!-- page 131 -->
d. Encourage consistent and uniform directional signage and accessible skyway system maps in multiple languages near skyway entrances, particularly along primary transit and pedestrian routes. Include navigation to publicly accessible restrooms.

e. Require convenient and easily accessible vertical connections between the skyway system and the public sidewalks, particularly along primary transit and pedestrian routes.

<<FIGURE>>

f. Require functional links in the skyway system while adjoining properties undergo redevelopment or renovation.

g. Limit skyway expansion to the downtown core and major institutional sites in order to minimize low-usage skyways and maximize street-level pedestrian activity in growing downtown neighborhoods and historic areas.

<<FIGURE>>

h. Encourage skyways as a transportation, rather than commercial system.

<!-- page 132 -->
**POLICY 12**

## Lighting
**Provide sufficient lighting on development sites and in the public realm, in a manner than ensures a comfortable environment, contributes to pedestrian safety, and conserves energy.**

<<FIGURE>>

**Lighting is an important element in the urban environment.** The quality and quantity of lighting affects public health, safety, comfort, productivity, and economy. The City, along with other public partners, owns and maintains lighting in the public realm. Additionally, the City regulates lighting produced on private property, particularly in relation to impacts on surrounding uses. The overall goal is to create a safe, comfortable, and attractive environment for residents, businesses, and visitors.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to provide sufficient lighting on development sites and in the public realm, in a manner than ensures a comfortable environment, contributes to pedestrian safety, and conserves energy.**

a. Provide high-quality energy efficient lighting fixture designs that are appropriate for adjacent land uses, and that provides safe pedestrian friendly illumination, maximizes dark sky conditions, but minimizes glare and other unnecessary light pollution.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 133 -->
b. Encourage pedestrian scale lighting throughout neighborhoods as well as in areas such as waterfronts, pathways, parks and plazas, and designated historic districts.

c. Ensure that all site lighting requirements and directional signs have appropriate illumination levels, are effectively placed, comply with zoning and industry illumination standards and avoid over-lighting.

d. Integrate exterior building lighting design to attune with building designs and landscaping.

e. Provide sufficient lighting for better way-finding and safe circulation within and around all sides of the development.

f. Encourage additional pedestrian-scale exterior lighting in areas with high pedestrian traffic such as transit station areas and Goods and Services corridors.

g. Update City regulations to reflect best available practices related to dark skies and the environmental benefits of strategic lighting management.

h. Educate homeowners, property managers, landlords, and business owners on how to provide energy efficient, downcast, non-glare exterior lighting when retrofitting their buildings and properties.

i. Encourage homeowners, property managers, landlords, and business owners to maintain a minimal level of lighting along public ways consistent with best practices.

<!-- page 134 -->
**POLICY 13**

# Landscaping
## Require landscaping in conjunction with new development that complements its surroundings and enhances the built environment.

<<FIGURE>>

**A well-designed landscape will create and define spaces while softening the built environment.** Landscaping provides beauty and visual interest, shade and environmental benefits, as well as screening and buffering of uses. It is important to consider the impact different types of plants and trees have on their surrounding environment, including their resilience to climate fluctuations, and their ability to be properly maintained.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to require landscaping in conjunction with new development that complements its surroundings and enhances the built environment.**

a. Encourage larger, well-placed, contiguous planting areas that create and define public and private spaces, and acknowledge the roles that smaller, disconnected areas can play in supporting diverse ecologies.

b. Encourage plant and tree types that complement the surrounding area, including a variety of species throughout the site, and seasonal interest. Species should be climate resilient, indigenous, or proven adaptable to the local climate and should not be invasive on native species.

c. Promote landscaped areas that include plant and tree types that address ecological function, including the interception and filtration of stormwater, reduction of the urban heat island effect, and preservation and restoration of natural amenities.

d. Require the maintenance of landscaped areas in accordance with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, to allow views into and out of the site, to preserve view corridors, and to maintain sight lines at vehicular and pedestrian intersections.

e. Encourage landscaping plans that facilitate future maintenance including those that minimize the need for irrigation systems, utilize drought and salt-resistant species, and consider ongoing performance of storm water treatment practices, snow storage, access to sun, proximity to buildings, paved surfaces, and overhead utilities.

<!-- page 135 -->
f. Encourage and identify opportunities to integrate green roofs, living walls, and porous pavement into development, acknowledging that these practices are not meant to be a substitute for ground-level landscaping of sites as landscaping provides both a natural amenity and aesthetic beauty to the urban landscape.

g. Encourage boulevard landscaping and improvements, in accordance with applicable City polices and regulations.

h. Increase use of green infrastructure to enhance the attractiveness of the public realm and positively impact storm water management.

i. Enforce maintenance of required landscaping.

j. Encourage native and pollinator-friendly species in landscaping.

k. Encourage the regulation of, and education around, the use of pesticides and chemical compounds on privately owned land.

<!-- page 136 -->
# POLICY 14

## Tree Canopy and Urban Forest
### Improve the tree canopy and urban forest.

<<FIGURE>>

**The tree canopy in Minneapolis is an asset for its aesthetic value as well as ecological and environmental benefits, as well as a particular source of pride and joy for Minneapolis residents.** According to research done by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, trees on public property save each Minneapolis taxpayer approximately $100 a year. Trees soak up rain water, meaning less runoff to rivers and creeks, which in turn results in cleaner drinking water, better wildlife habitat, and a healthier ecosystem. Trees on public property process 200 million gallons of water annually, resulting in a $5.9M savings in storm water management costs. They provide $5.8 million in energy savings through providing shade in summer to keep buildings cool, and blocking wind in winter to keep buildings warm. This savings is equivalent to the energy needs of 4,350 homes annually. Additionally, they absorb and hold 92 million pounds of carbon from the atmosphere each year. This is the equivalent of taking 8,936 cars off the road. They also remove the equivalent of 333,000 pounds of harmful particulates in the air, improving air quality. Street trees in particular also provide experiential, aesthetic, public health, and safety benefits to residents utilizing public walkways, while mitigating the urban heat island effect.

The ornamental and shade trees in the city's streets, alleys, public grounds and parklands are the responsibility of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board while trees on private property are the responsibility of the property owner. The City supports maintaining the health of all the city's trees and increasing the city's tree canopy to make Minneapolis a healthier place for all its residents.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve the tree canopy and urban forest.**

a. Develop and implement strategies and quantifiable goals to increase the tree canopy including exploring an expansion of funding and incentives to plant and promote species diversity while retaining and protecting existing trees.

b. Provide education and training on tree care for all residents.

c. Ensure a healthy tree planting environment in the right of way by increasing growing space, and maintain its quality by relocating utilities to avoid conflicts.

d. Explore incentives, programs, and requirements for new developments and additions to existing buildings, to retain mature trees, replace lost trees, and plant more trees if none were there originally.

e. Require new developments to preserve existing mature trees in the public right of way where feasible and reasonable.

<!-- page 137 -->
### POLICY 15

## Transportation and Equity
### Ensure that the quality and function of the transportation system contributes to equitable outcomes for all people.

<<FIGURE>>

**Achieving equity in transportation means that the quality of the transportation networks in the city creates fair and just opportunities and outcomes for all people.** The City of Minneapolis ensures that the quality of the transportation system is held to the same high standard throughout the city. This is done by using quantitative analysis to prioritize street projects based on the physical condition of the streets as well as equity criteria, defined as both the demographics of the areas served by the streets as well as modal needs along each street. This process is detailed in the 20-Year Street Funding Plan, which was created in 2016 and outlines the methodology of selecting capital street projects for improvement -- with a focus on racial and economic equity.

Ensuring that the transportation system functions in a manner that contributes to equitable outcomes requires measuring the success of this goal. The purpose of transportation is to access employment, goods and services, nature and recreation, and to participate in social and civic life. Increased availability of transportation and land use data can facilitate a better understanding of how access to the necessities of life varies by mode and geography, and can help inform decisions about transportation and land use.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure that the quality and function of the transportation system contributes to equitable outcomes for all people.**

a. Prioritize equity considerations in transportation programming as outlined in the 20 Year Street Funding Plan and continue to refine plans as necessary.

b. Provide equitable and ample access to walking, bicycling, transit options, and a shared mobility economy.

c. Develop ongoing measurements to track the effectiveness of the transportation system in contributing to equitable outcomes.

d. Increase connections to isolated areas of the city that were created by historic inequities.

e. Support strategies to improve mobility for seniors and those with mobility challenges.

<!-- page 138 -->
**POLICY 16**

# Environmental Impacts of Transportation
## Reduce the energy, carbon, and health impacts of transportation through reduced single-occupancy vehicle trips and phasing out of fossil fuel vehicles.

<<FIGURE>>

**Minneapolis is uniquely positioned, along with Saint Paul, to lead the region in confronting the challenges of climate change and energy.** The high concentration of people, buildings, and transportation networks create a centralized demand for fossil-fuel based energy. This intersection of people and infrastructure also creates a high level of vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, as warming temperatures, extreme weather events, and flooding can all threaten the reliability and security of the energy systems we depend on. Addressing the growing risks while reducing our impact on the climate will require unprecedented efforts to change our demands on the energy network and the way our energy system is structured.

The Minneapolis Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2013 and provides a road map toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions with targets of 15% by 2015 and 30% by

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 139 -->
2025 from 2006 levels. In 2014, Minneapolis passed an 80% reduction goal by 2050 and formed the Clean Energy Partnership with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. In 2015, on-road transportation accounted for 26 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. Today, over 90 percent of passenger miles traveled in Minneapolis are in personal automobiles. Even with the adoption of electric cars, a 38 percent reduction in passenger miles traveled by automobile is needed to achieve the 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

In addition to impacting climate change, vehicle emissions significantly degrade air quality, especially for people living on or near busy streets and highways. These emissions lead to increases in asthma hospitalizations, cancer, and heart attacks.

A multi-pronged approach is necessary to substantially reduce vehicle emissions, including supporting environments that encourage walking as an attractive option, increased options for safe and comfortable bicycling, more reliable and attractive public transit, shared mobility options that support a car-free or car-lite lifestyle, and adoption of electric vehicles.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to reduce the energy, carbon, and health impacts of transportation through reduced single-occupancy vehicle trips and phasing out of fossil fuel vehicles.**

a. Require creation and implemental of travel demand management strategies in new development such as facilities for bicycle commuters, transit passes, and market-priced parking.

b. Increase availability and attractiveness of public transportation and non-motorized modes, and continue to disincentivize driving and driving alone.

c. Support the education and outreach efforts of transportation management organizations focused on reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips.

d. Continue to evaluate and implement traffic control measures to minimize vehicle emissions.

e. Implement fees and incentives that encourage the use of public transportation and zero-emissions vehicles in an equitable manner.

f. Transition both public and private vehicle fleets to zero-emissions technology where technology allows.

g. Explore incentives and requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new development and in the public right-of-way.

h. Incorporate carbon-reduction design elements into City infrastructure projects.

i. Enforce full compliance with the City’s idling ordinance. Utilize technology to track and improve compliance with the public fleet.

j. Incentivize shared mobility options and maximize vehicle occupancy, ensuring the City is able to develop partnerships with public and private companies through policy and fee structures to support climate goals and equitable access to services.

k. Document and publish the anticipated greenhouse gas impact of every major city infrastructure project.

<!-- page 140 -->
### POLICY 17

## Complete Streets
### Plan, design, build, maintain, and operate the city’s transportation system in a way that prioritizes pedestrians first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and lastly motor vehicle use. (Complete Streets Policy, adopted May 2016.)

<<FIGURE>>

**The City’s Complete Street Policy creates a modal hierarchy in the public right of way.** The Policy prioritizes walking and pedestrians first, followed by bicycling and taking transit, and lastly driving motor vehicles. This policy framework guides all transportation-related decisions and encompasses all elements in the public right of way. The Complete Streets Policy vision is to improve the environment, the health and safety of residents, and support and strengthen the local economy.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to plan, design, build, maintain, and operate the city’s transportation system in a way that prioritizes pedestrians first, followed by bicycling and transit use, and lastly motor vehicle use. (Complete Streets Policy, adopted May 2016.)**

a. Implement the Complete Streets Policy throughout all phases of transportation projects and initiatives, including programming, planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance.

b. Incorporate the Complete Streets Policy into all elements of the public right-of-way, including landscaping, transit shelters, lighting, signs, traffic lights, parking meters, bicycle parking, and furniture.

c. Document the implementation of the Complete Streets Policy for each individual project.

d. Prioritize projects that will improve the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks when developing the City’s long-range Capital Improvement Program, focusing on an equitable distribution of resources and recognizing historical practices that led to inequitable pedestrian networks.

<!-- page 141 -->
Plan Policies

e. Incorporate a context-based approach informed by the Complete Streets Policy when planning and designing transportation projects.

f. Continue to explore flexible and innovative designs that aim to achieve desired outcomes, and continue to evaluate the latest design standards and innovative concepts, seeking guidance from established best practices.

g. Where standards established by other units of government conflict with the City's Complete Streets Policy, seek design exceptions and variances to their established standards.

h. Develop strong curbside management policies to take full advantage of a dynamic urban environment.

<!-- page 142 -->
### POLICY 18

## Pedestrians
### Improve the pedestrian environment in order to encourage walking and the use of mobility aids as a mode of transportation.

<<FIGURE>>

**Walking and the use of mobility aids is an essential mode of transportation in Minneapolis. Everyone walks, whether young or old, whether on foot or using a mobility device, whether as a walking pedestrian trip alone or in conjunction with taking transit, bicycling, or driving.** Pedestrians and pedestrian environments support the economy. The most successful commercial districts in Minneapolis rely on high levels of pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians also contribute to an active lifestyle, improving health outcomes. Increasing the number of pedestrians and improving the pedestrian environment are critical components of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and indirectly. Specific sidewalk design guidance, which is carefully planned according to accessibility standards, adjacent land uses, and street typology, is provided in the Street and Sidewalk Design Guidelines that are part of the City’s Transportation Action Plan.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve the pedestrian environment in order to encourage walking as a mode of transportation.**

a. Improve safety for pedestrians, and prioritize pedestrians over other road users, especially at street intersections; focus on signals, crosswalks, lighting, signage, visibility, and lowering vehicular speeds through street design and other measures.

b. Foster vibrant public spaces for street life.

c. Provide clearly-designated pedestrian areas in accordance with the City’s Street and Sidewalk Design Guidelines.

d. Minimize the number of vehicle curb cuts that hinder pedestrian safety; be deliberate in the placement of drop-off zones and other curb side uses and evaluate the pedestrian benefits as a part of the decision-making process.

e. Deploy traffic calming measures.

f. Improve pedestrian connections across barriers such as freeways, highways, and busy streets.

g. Encourage sidewalk widths that reflect existing or expected volumes of pedestrian traffic, as guided in Street and Sidewalk Design Guidelines.

h. As opportunities exist, encourage and design for streetscape amenities, including street furniture,

<!-- page 143 -->
street lighting, trees, and landscaping, that buffer
pedestrians from street traffic and parking areas.

i. Continue to make improvements to the existing
sidewalk network, and fill existing sidewalk gaps.

j. Implement and expand zoning regulations and
incentives that promote pedestrian activity,
such as the provision of secured storage for
transportation carts near building entrances,
storage lockers, and changing and shower
facilities.

k. Ensure timely city-wide enforcement of regulations
for snow and ice removal from sidewalks. Include
annual public education and support for those with
physical limitations. Explore additional strategies,
technologies, and improved City clearance
operations.

l. Ensure timely city-wide enforcement of regulations
for snow and ice removal from sidewalks. Include
annual public education and support for those with
physical limitations. Explore additional strategies,
technologies, and improved City clearance
operations.

<!-- page 144 -->
**POLICY 19**

# Bicycling
## Improve and expand bicycle facilities in order to encourage bicycling as a mode of transportation.

<<FIGURE>>

**Our City’s network of on-street and off-street bikeways, totaling more than 250 miles, provide the opportunity for people from Minneapolis and elsewhere to enjoy the benefits of accessing daily needs, commuting, and recreating by bicycle.** The US Census estimates that 5% of Minneapolis residents commute by bicycle. This is among the highest bicycle commute shares in the nation, and it has risen as the City has continued to invest in expanding and improving the bicycle network. If the city is to reach its goal of 15% bicycle mode share by 2025 (Climate Action Plan), this trend will need to continue. Making bicycling attractive to more people will improve health, support our local economy, and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions via reduced vehicle trips.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve and expand bicycle facilities in order to encourage bicycling as a mode of transportation.**

a. Continue to build and maintain a network of bikeways including greenways and accessible protected bikelanes.

b. Develop guidance for selecting bikeway types when planning and designing streets.

c. Embrace and implement emerging best practices in bikeway design.

d. Implement and expand zoning regulations and incentives that promote bicycling, such as the provision of secured storage for bicycles near building entrances, storage lockers, and changing and shower facilities.

e. Minimize the number of vehicle curb cuts that hinder bicyclist safety; be deliberate in the placement of drop-off zones and other curb side uses, and evaluate the bicycling benefits as a part of the decision-making process.

f. Expand use of bicycles as part of the public fleet.

g. Explore ways to increase accessibility to new bicycle technologies.

<!-- page 145 -->
#### POLICY 20

### Transit
## Increase the frequency, speed, and reliability of the public transit system in order to increase ridership and support new housing and jobs.

<<FIGURE>>

**2016 marked the 6th consecutive year in a row that Metro Transit ridership surpassed 80 million annual rides.** Metro Transit’s system includes light rail, high frequency, rapid, commuter, and local bus lines as well as Metro Mobility and community partnerships that extend the reach of transit use to the outer edges of the metro area. In 2015, 13.1% of the working population over 16 in Minneapolis used public transportation to commute to work. In the core of downtown, transit carries 45-54% of peak period passenger trips. Approximately 18% of Minneapolis households are without access to a personal vehicle, making transit, car-sharing or carpooling, or non-motorized transportation a necessity for many in the city.

Public transit is essential to providing transportation and accessibility that aid in combating climate change and reducing economic disparities. As our city’s population grows, it will be necessary to increase the frequency, speed, and reliability of the public transit system in order to increase ridership and support new housing and jobs.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to increase the frequency, speed, and reliability of the public transit system in order to increase ridership and support new housing and jobs.**

a. Actively shape and define the City’s transit vision and framework, with a focus on outcomes rather than modes.

b. Partner with Metro Transit and other agencies to pursue new transit projects of high impact.

c. Work with regional partners to make transit more effective at the local level on both major regional projects as well as the local network.

d. Support Metro Transit’s efforts to install higher quality infrastructure (bus shelters, heating, lights) and coordinate these improvements with street improvement projects and new development.

e. Support Metro Transit’s efforts to monitor and maintain transit facilities, including landscaping, trash removal, and cleaning of bus shelters.

f. Partner with Metro Transit and other transit providers to provide reliable service in Minneapolis through shorter transit headways and transit advantages, including priority transit lanes and signal priority and preemption.

g. Coordinate major transit projects with housing, economic development, and other transportation-related capital improvement investments, including connections to transit via walking pedestrian routes and bicycling facilities.

<!-- page 146 -->
# Plan Policies

h. Ensure that high frequency bus routes serve areas with the highest residential, employment and commercial densities.

i. Support the creation of MnPASS for transit advantages to encourage more regional transit use into the downtown core; the conversion of general purpose freeway lanes to MnPASS lanes is preferred over capacity expansion.

j. Increase and improve transit and mobility options within, to, from and around Downtown to support commerce and density.

<!-- page 147 -->
### POLICY 21

## Freight
### Accommodate freight movement and facilities in order to support the local and regional economy.

<<FIGURE>>

**The safe, efficient, and reliable movement of freight is vital to a healthy local and regional economy.** All industries, especially manufacturing, construction, wholesale, and retail trade, rely on a multimodal freight system to transport goods. Truck traffic comprises most of the local and regional freight system in Minneapolis, with additional regional and international connections via rail and air.

The City of Minneapolis will support the maintenance and expansion of freight infrastructure where benefits to the local and regional economy are apparent and where impacts to surrounding land uses are minimal. The City will encourage adaptation of urban-centered freight innovation and technology, both for shipment into Minneapolis and last mile distribution.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to accommodate freight movement and facilities in order to support the local and regional economy.**

a. Adapt to the changing needs of freight, e-commerce and urban logistics.

b. Support the continuation of existing freight rail infrastructure where consistent with land use policy, but do not support expansion of freight rail through Minneapolis.

c. Prioritize investment in safety and crossing improvements along active railroad corridors.

d. Maintain a network of truck routes that ensures the safe and efficient delivery of goods, while encouraging smaller vehicles that are more compatible with an urban environment, centralized drop off and pick up zones, and other innovations that make freight delivery more convenient for the customer with less of an impact on the transportation network.

e. Encourage electrification of freight vehicles, as well as the automation of platooning.

<!-- page 148 -->
### POLICY 22

## Downtown Transportation
### Ensure travel to and throughout Downtown is efficient, understandable, reliable, and safe.

<<FIGURE>>

**Downtown Minneapolis serves as the economic, cultural, and transportation hub of the region and requires ongoing coordinated improvements to its streets, sidewalks, transit facilities, and bikeways.** As the city grows, thoughtful multimodal transportation planning will support the continued success of Downtown in meeting these needs of the city and region.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure travel to and throughout Downtown is efficient, understandable, reliable, and safe.**

a. Encourage pedestrian activity, bicycling, and transit use Downtown, including promoting incentives to make transit more convenient for users traveling to, through, and within Downtown, as well as improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and amenities.

b. Manage the supply and design of parking downtown in a manner consistent with objectives for climate protection, pedestrian activity, bicycling, and transit users.

c. Improve the pedestrian environment Downtown by investing in the public realm and designing buildings to create a pedestrian friendly environment.

d. Partner with property owners to seek out and seize opportunities to connect vertically into and out of the skyway system from and to the public realm through wayfinding and vertical circulation.

e. Ensure that streets serving freeway connections reflect the complete streets policy.

f. Support the education and implementation activities of the Downtown Transportation Management Organization (TMO).

g. Develop strong curbside management policies to take full advantage of the dynamic Downtown urban environment, by supporting street level retail business and addressing the unique freight and delivery needs of the area Downtown.

<!-- page 149 -->
### POLICY 23

## Coordinated Development Strategy
### Coordinate the development of housing, businesses, and infrastructure in geographic areas where a district-wide approach has the greatest opportunity for achieving Minneapolis 2040 goals.

**By several measures, Minneapolis is experiencing a resurgence.** The city’s number of residents and jobs is increasing, new businesses are opening, and over $1 billion each year is invested in new buildings and remodeling. Despite this overall success, some areas of the city are not sharing in the positive effects of reinvestment, perpetuating institutional racism in housing and the economy. In addition, some areas of the city may grow dramatically and may not experience commensurate infrastructure or service investments. Overcoming those disparities requires community centered, long-term, sustained, and coordinated investments in public and private land development, development-related public infrastructure, and transportation systems.

In some areas of the city strategic investments by the public sector can spur the private market to deliver new development that provides housing, jobs, and retail goods and services while increasing the tax base. In these cases, the City recognizes that redevelopment areas can benefit from a system-wide district approach through coordinated infrastructure improvements, building on proximity to critical resources, and implementing synergistic land use and transportation strategies. This approach can also be utilized when planning for stormwater management, energy, parking, place making, green space, and marketing as opportunities for achieving the goals of this plan. This district-wide approach to coordinated development can be, but is not limited to,referred to as an Innovation District or a Cultural District.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to coordinate the development of housing, businesses, and infrastructure in geographic areas where a district-wide approach has the greatest opportunity for achieving Minneapolis 2040 goals.**

a. Use data on racial disparities and community asset mapping criteria to identify geographic areas most in need of reinvestment and where a coordinated approach would result in achieving Minneapolis 2040 goals, including but not limited to areas that have historically experienced disinvestment.

b. In geographic areas most in need of reinvestment, conduct community centered planning processes that clearly articulate a coordinated district-wide development plan including the location, phasing, and conceptual design of buildings and infrastructure as well as strategies to minimize the displacement of nearby residents and businesses.

c. Devote City staff time to interdepartmental and interagency coordination teams tasked with implementing coordinated district-wide development plans in these areas.

<!-- page 150 -->
# Plan Policies

d. Prioritize use of City dollars, as well as resources from other jurisdictions, on implementing coordinated district-wide development plans in these areas.

e. Use and leverage City funds, including the City’s Development Infrastructure Fund, to make strategic infrastructure investments that implement coordinated district-wide development plans in these areas.

f. Prioritize acquiring and disposing of property in order to implement coordinated district-wide development in areas where the positive benefits of reinvestment can have the greatest gain by and most immediate impact for people of color, Indigenous people, immigrants, and low-income residents.

g. Ensure a participatory decision-making process with a focus on the equitable engagement of historically underrepresented populations throughout City-coordinated and funded projects.

h. Invest in transportation infrastructure in locations experiencing growth, particularly in locations that have existing transportation infrastructure that needs to adapt to the demands and opportunities brought by growth.

<!-- page 151 -->
### POLICY 24

## Shared Mobility
### Position Minneapolis to benefit from upcoming changes to vehicle ownership models while supporting a shared use mobility network.

<<FIGURE>>

**Shared mobility opens up new ways of getting around the city through short-term vehicle rentals and on-demand rides via mobile apps.** Shared mobility is akin to smaller and more flexible transit options, and needs a strong transit base for large-scale success. These services have the potential to reduce transportation costs for individuals and households by making it easier to reduce the number of vehicles owned by a household. Bikeshare, shared vehicles, and ride-hailing services support walking, bicycling, and transit use by serving as a backup when circumstances are not conducive to choosing those modes. Minneapolis will take proactive steps to benefit from these services as they evolve.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to position Minneapolis to benefit from upcoming changes to vehicle ownership models while supporting a shared use mobility network.**

a. Prioritize innovation through pilots and experimentation, as well as design, regulatory, and policy initiatives.

b. Plan for a shared vehicle fleet and its impact on the built form, including automobiles and bikeshare.

c. Establish parking guidelines and requirements that reflect changing car ownership models, both on-street and off-street.

d. Lead by example in City-owned parking facilities by supporting carpools, vanpools, and shared mobility vehicles which encourages private parking facility owners to do the same.

e. Evaluate demographics of early adopters of new ownership models and ensure shared mobility benefits are accessible in an equitable way.

f. Require private transportation network company operators to share data that supports the City’s ongoing transportation planning work with a focus on equity and access for all.

g. Require private transportation network company operators to share data that supports the City’s ongoing transportation planning work with a focus on minimizing greenhouse gas emissions.

<!-- page 152 -->
#### POLICY 25

## Innovations in Transportation and Infrastructure
### Support the development and deployment of new transportation technologies that positions Minneapolis to benefit from these advancements.

**New technologies could potentially minimize vehicle use within the city through innovations in transit, shared mobility options, and drone delivery.** Minneapolis will still need to maintain the balance between all modes traveling on its streets. As technology progresses into the realm of autonomous cars and freight, the City will need to anticipate and adapt to future needs and shifts in modal use.

> ### ACTION STEPS
>
> **The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support the development and deployment of new transportation technologies that positions Minneapolis to benefit from these advancements.**
>
> a. Proactively regulate automated vehicles in Minneapolis while ensuring equitable access.
>
> b. Advocate for state legislation that allows new transportation and infrastructure technology to be tested and deployed on public streets.
>
> c. Proactively plan for impacts of automated and connected vehicles.
>
> d. Encourage and support electric vehicles by prioritizing associated public and private infrastructure including in the right of way, and ensure that electric vehicle charging infrastructure incentivizes the use of renewably generated electricity.
>
> e. Develop and evolve parking policy for first a partially automated future and then a fully automated future.
>
> f. Proactively prepare for drones as a freight component, as an inspection vehicle, or for other means of advancing mobility in the city.
>
> g. Work with purveyors of new transportation and infrastructure technology to ensure timely, equitable, and climate sensitive deployment.
>
> h. Promote Minneapolis as a place to develop and test new transportation and infrastructure technology by partnering with entrepreneurs in the industry to incorporate new technologies in manners supportive of City goals for transportation.
>
> i. Study, encourage, and implement new and creative parking strategies to accommodate increased residential density.

<!-- page 153 -->
### POLICY 26

## Vision Zero
### Eliminate fatalities and severe injuries that are a result of crashes on City streets by 2027.

**The City aims to provide safe transportation networks and options for all users.** In 2016, the state of Minnesota experienced 397 deaths related from motor vehicle crashes, with 60 of those being pedestrians. Hennepin County had 187 traffic fatalities between 2011 and 2015, with 9 pedestrian deaths and 2 bicyclist deaths in 2015. Minneapolis has experienced 22 traffic fatalities between 2013 and 2015. A holistic approach that explores the needs of all users and prioritizes safe interactions on city streets-- including safer speeds, design strategies, investment, and policy decisions -- will provide the building blocks towards creating safe streets for all.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries that are a result of crashes on city streets by 2027.**

a. Working together with the community, develop a Vision Zero Action Plan, and implement prioritized measures that are identified through a robust planning process.

b. Include a broad range of approaches involving numerous disciplines including communications, law, engineering, and health when developing the Vision Zero Action Plan.

c. Pursue changes to state statute to allow reduction of speed limits on Minneapolis streets, and use existing statutory authority to reduce speed limits on streets with bicycle facilities.

d. Prioritize safety investments in line with the Complete Streets Policy.

<!-- page 154 -->
### POLICY 27

## Transportation Partnerships
### Create and seize opportunities to identify and achieve shared goals, responsibilities, and participation, while leveraging funding opportunities with regional partners or others making investments in the city.

**Historically, the City of Minneapolis has collaborated with the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County, Metro Transit, and other agencies to achieve success in transportation planning and implementation.** These partnerships have helped the City create a wide reaching transportation network and access a larger pool of funding opportunities. The City can continue to leverage other larger or capital programs that can help fund improvements and coordinate timelines and efforts in order to efficiently implement projects and achieve shared outcomes consistent with City transportation policies.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to create and seize opportunities to leverage funding to identify and achieve shared goals, responsibilities, and participation, while leveraging funding opportunities with regional partners or others making investments in the city.**

a. Coordinate with other jurisdictional partners to improve networks that run through the City of Minneapolis but are not owned by the City.

b. Utilize existing City transportation policies to tie decisions to place and context.

c. Advocate for greater flexibility in city-specific transportation funding mechanisms.

<!-- page 155 -->
**POLICY 28**

## MSP Airport
### Ensure Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport is efficient, connected, and environmentally sound.

**The Minneapolis-Saint Paul Airport (MSP) connects the twin cities to other cities in the United States and also abroad.** Located just over 12 miles from the downtown core, MSP is easily accessible by light rail transit, bus, or car. The airport connects the Twin Cities nonstop from 128 domestic and 27 international markets. Over 37 million travelers were served by MSP in 2016, placing it 16th in North America in annual passengers served. Though located outside of Minneapolis city boundary, MSP is an important asset to the City, and it also depends on the success of the City. The growth in ease of travel to and from Minneapolis will result in a more prosperous city overall.

Proximity to the airport also brings impacts on adjacent communities. The City will continue to engage with MSP to reduce and manage noise and pollution impacts.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport is efficient, connected, and environmentally sound.**

a. Continue to advocate for programs and procedures that prevent, reduce, and mitigate aircraft noise and continue to collaborate with partners, including the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration.

b. Diversify and supplement options for regional and national travel, including non-aviation modes such as intercity rail.

c. Improve multimodal access to the airport, including pedestrian and bicycling access for employees, travelers, and other visitors.

d. Support efforts at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport that improve the energy efficiency and environmental sustainability of air and ground transportation, and landside operations

<!-- page 156 -->
### POLICY 29

## Arts and Creative Spaces, Venues and Districts

### Ensure growth and sustainability in the creative sector economy by providing artists, creative workers, and arts and cultural organizations with the resources and support they need to create and thrive.

**Arts Districts and concentrated areas of artists’ studios, creative work spaces, and arts venues contribute to the vitality of many places in the city; including the Northeast Arts District, the Hennepin Theater District, the Cedar Riverside area, the Mill District, South Chicago Avenue, West Broadway and others.**

Former industrial areas with low rents have traditionally been attractive to artists and other creative entrepreneurs due of their affordability, historic character, flexible large-scale open floor plans, sound isolation, and natural ventilation. This proximity has provided artists with informal opportunities to connect and learn from each other, collectively exhibit, and sell and market their creative work. Events such as Art-A-Whirl provide the public with the opportunity to see 800 artists in every medium at more than 60 locations throughout Northeast Minneapolis.

Clusters of galleries and studios in previously underused retail spaces, along with creative businesses in underutilized office and commercial spaces, also benefit both the creative entrepreneur and the local community. The same characteristics that make an area attractive to artists and creative workers—along with the character they subsequently bring to the area—ultimately makes these places ripe for more development, coffee houses, breweries, and people seeking unique housing options. There is the potential that with this competition for space, property values will increase. Artists and creative workers, who typically rent their spaces, may be priced out.

The transition from artist districts to gentrified areas is a common issue that cities across the US have reckoned with for generations. These same challenges also undermine the ability of a multitude of small arts and culture for-profit/nonprofit and arts incubators to sustain themselves. There is a need to identify the tools available to artists, creative workers, arts organizations or venues, and cities, seeking to prevent displacement. These tools should also assist artists in avoiding unintentionally displacing long-term residents and businesses.

<!-- page 157 -->
## ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure growth and sustainability in the creative sector economy by providing artists, creative workers and arts and cultural organizations with the resources and support they need to create and thrive.**

a. Explore strategies to retain buildings that offer artists and creative workers access to flexible and affordable spaces, spaces that serve unique production needs, and proximity that allows for interaction and learning from one another.

b. Support creative institutions that contribute to the vitality of arts, cultural and creative spaces, and districts within the city.

c. Support community efforts to brand and market arts districts.

d. Partner with private, philanthropic, and other government institutions to target investments in arts and creative spaces, venues, and districts, particularly in communities where there are existing racial, ethnic, and economic disparities.

e. Explore strategies to prevent displacement and preserve the affordability of artist and creative studios, work spaces, live spaces, venues and districts, such as coop models, subsidies, long-term leases, and an Advanced Notice of sale policy.

f. Acknowledge and address the role the creative sector plays in displacing long-term residents and businesses.

<!-- page 158 -->
### POLICY 30

## Emphasize the Value of Minneapolis’ Arts and Culture
### Support the creative economy, cultural organizations, and the city’s quality of life by raising awareness of and promoting the value of local arts and culture.

<<FIGURE>>

**Creative sales make up almost 6% of all industry sales in the city.** The fact that for profit creative sales contributed $5.1 billion into Minneapolis’ economy—nearly 9.2 times the size of Minneapolis’ sports sector revenues—is a well-kept secret, as is the nonprofit arts and culture sectors contribution of $346 Million to the city’s economy.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support the creative economy, cultural organizations, and the city’s quality of life by raising awareness of and promoting the value of local arts and culture.**

a. Build awareness among residents and youth about the value of the arts to the city’s economy and livability.

b. Create access to opportunities for young people, particularly youth of color and indigenous youth, to pursue arts careers through arts education efforts, apprenticeships, and mentorships.

c. Research and promote the strength and diversity of local artists, creative entrepreneurs, and arts and cultural organizations in the vibrant downtown area and the city’s diverse neighborhood and corridors.

d. Partner with the public and private sectors to promote, support, and engage creative organizations and artists.

e. Partner with the private sector to promote the city’s vibrant arts and culture scene as a means of attracting and retaining skilled workers.

<!-- page 159 -->
### POLICY 31

# Artists and Creative Workers
## Engage artists and creative workers in the City enterprise and support their capacity to earn revenue.

**The city experienced 5.1% job growth in the creative sector between 2014 and 2016. Regionally, creative jobs have grown by 14.4% since 2006.** This growing sector of the overall knowledge economy is unique. Artists and creative workers frequently generate their income by combining contracted opportunities in the for-profit sector with grant opportunities in the public and nonprofit sectors. Small creative businesses and arts and cultural nonprofits also straddle these two worlds, combining for profit and nonprofit revenue streams in order to operate.

While the creative sector is cited as an important factor in promoting the city as a destination on a national and global scale, sustainability and growth in this sector faces particular challenges. Artists, creative entrepreneurs, and organizations do not see themselves as small businesses or fit in traditional small business models. They are often configured differently in terms of labor force and capital and space needs. To sustain the creative sector, the resources that support small businesses need to be tailored and targeted to their unique needs.

Racial and gender disparities that persist in Minneapolis’ economy also persist among creative workers. The 2018 Minneapolis Creative Vitality Index shows that in the region only 7-9% of jobs in the top-earning creative job types are held by people of color, and women are making very limited progress in gaining parity in many creative job types. Community input for this plan emphasized the need to engage artists of color and indigenous artists in providing training and mentoring as a means of addressing these disparities.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to engage artists and creative workers in the City enterprise and support their capacity to earn revenue.**

a. Make City programs for new and small businesses available to artists, art organizations, and creative entrepreneurs, particularly emerging artists, artists of color and indigenous artists, and women.

b. Engage artists of color, indigenous artists, and arts and cultural organizations in providing training and mentorship.

c. Provide artists and creative workers with competitive compensation.

d. Encourage government partners to engage artists and creative workers and provide them with appropriate support and compensation.

e. Provide opportunities for artists and other creative entrepreneurs to earn revenue.

f. Focus on highlighting local talent.

g. Engage artists and creative workers in City projects, training, planning, research, development, and community engagement.

<!-- page 160 -->
**POLICY 32**

# Arts and Culture in Community Development
## Build healthy and resilient communities through arts and culture.

<<FIGURE>>

**A growing body of research using the term “creative placemaking” demonstrates that creativity impacts livability, safety, health, and community development.** The results of creative placemaking activities can be dramatic and transformative for communities. Minneapolis neighborhoods use these strategies regularly working with an array of local artists and groups to creatively enhance public spaces and change the dynamics of their communities. A 2014 survey conducted through the City’s Creative City Roadmap Planning process demonstrated that Minneapolis residents and artists think it’s important to offer arts and cultural programs to connect people across differences and to make tangible the values and identities of their own local communities. Through the community engagement for this plan, many people acknowledged the need to for public art and placemaking to focus on the arts and culture of each neighborhood and build on each community’s unique diversity.

The Creative City Roadmap process also identified the need to build the sustained capacity of nonprofit and for-profit stakeholders to be successful in creative placemaking, as well as engage City departments and other government agencies in leveraging local creative sector talent and knowledge.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to build healthy and resilient communities through the arts and culture.**

a. Focus arts and culture programs on supporting and engaging communities of color, low income communities, and indigenous communities and celebrate the rich, diverse character and identities of the city’s neighborhoods and corridors.

b. Create welcoming environments for connecting and building trust between City government and communities of color through arts and cultural strategies.

c. Encourage community groups and organizations to develop public artworks that enhance the city’s public realm by building their capacity and simplifying approval processes.

d. Establish a sense of belonging by reflecting the identities of local ethnic, racial and cultural communities in the design of public art.

e. Engage artists and community members in guiding the long-term vision and direction of the City’s public art program.

<!-- page 161 -->
# Plan Policies

f. Encourage government partners to develop and maintain public art projects that support artists and engage the community.

g. Encourage creative expression and placemaking on commercial and cultural corridors and in neighborhoods, parks and public plazas.

h. Build on the leadership of cultural organizations within the city that celebrate and promote the traditions and values of various racial and ethnic groups.

i. Encourage non-traditional, hands-on, grassroots, and life long arts opportunities to participate in creating art.

j. Engage artists of color, indigenous artists, and arts and cultural organizations in leading these opportunities.

<!-- page 162 -->
### POLICY 33

## Affordable Housing Production and Preservation

### Produce housing units that meet the changing needs of Minneapolis residents in terms of unit sizes, housing types, levels of affordability, and locations while preserving existing housing using targeted, priority-based strategies.

<<FIGURE>>

**Affordable housing is rental housing with rent and income restrictions (typically 60% of Area Median Income or below) or housing for homeownership with income restrictions (typically less than 80 percent of Area Median Income) as governed by local, state, and federal housing assistance programs.** This is in comparison to *Housing Affordability*, which is access to homeownership or rental options based on housing price relative to household income. In Minneapolis, renters who qualify for affordable housing earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income ($28,300 per year), are one of the two largest groups of residents in the city after 100% AMI or greater homeowners ($94,300 per year). (**Figure P33.1**).

Minneapolis has less affordable housing than it did 10 years ago, and production of affordable housing is not keeping pace with the loss. There is a great need for the creation of new legally binding affordable housing as well as for the preservation of existing legally binding and naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). This need outstrips the resources and tools that are currently available to produce and preserve affordable housing;

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 163 -->
meeting the need will require new and expanded tools and resources. Since 2000, Minneapolis has lost roughly 15,000 housing units that are considered affordable for those earning 50 percent of the area median income. This is despite the City producing or preserving 8,900 such housing units.

The loss of affordable units is compounded by decreasing wages and rising rents. The median income of renters is down 14 percent from 2000 while median rent has increased by 11 percent. This is further evidenced by the fact that 50 percent of all renters are cost-burdened and 74 percent of low-income renters are cost-burdened.

Another factor impacting housing in Minneapolis is that its residents continue to change, and along with that their housing needs and desires change.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to produce housing units that meet the changing needs of Minneapolis residents in terms of unit sizes, housing types, levels of affordability, and locations while preserving existing housing using targeted, priority-based strategies.**

a. Produce more affordable housing by expanding tools and resources, prioritizing funding to households earning at or below 30% and 50% of area median income.

b. Pursue policies, tools, and programs to ensure long-term housing affordability, such as requiring the maximum affordability term of at least 30 years for new affordable housing construction.

c. Strengthen strategies to retain naturally occurring affordable housing, such as reducing property taxes and increasing funding for acquisition.

d. Create strategies to retain naturally occurring affordable housing and existing housing types that are typically not constructed in the marketplace, such as, single room occupancy, shared housing, co-housing, cooperative housing, and 3+ bedroom units for families.

e. Encourage affordable living features in residential development that result in lower transportation costs and reduce monthly utility bills for its residents.

f. Ensure an equitable spacing across the city of affordable housing, supportive housing, shelters, and government placed residents.

g. Create strategies that reduce the cost of affordable housing, such as design competitions for low cost housing using innovative techniques like prefab and manufactured housing, 3-D printed housing and tiny houses.

h. Provide density bonuses and other incentives for the construction of affordable housing.

i. Preserve, improve, and expand public housing that serves the lowest-income people in our city.

j. Support and promote housing options that allow for aging in place, both within a community and at home.

k. The City of Minneapolis is committed to preserving and increasing our public housing stock.

<!-- page 164 -->
**POLICY 34**

### Cultural Districts
### Strengthen neighborhoods by prioritizing and accelerating economic development, public transit, and affordable housing policies, practices, and resources to protect the racial diversity and uplift the cultural identity of the city’s areas where a significant portion of the population is comprised of people of color, Indigenous people, and/or immigrant (POCII) communities.

**Given the history of redlining and economic exclusion, the City will designate Cultural Districts to prevent the displacement of low-income residents while nurturing thriving commercial corridors.** A Cultural District is a contiguous area with a rich sense of cultural and/or linguistic identity rooted in communities significantly populated by people of color, Indigenous people, and/or immigrants. The City of Minneapolis’ Cultural Districts designation will allow for the creation and prioritized implementation of new investment tools, policies, and practices that directly respond to the needs of POCII communities to stop the displacement of these communities and advance racial equity in Minneapolis.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to strengthen neighborhoods by prioritizing and accelerating economic development, public transit, and affordable housing policies, practices, and resources to protect the racial diversity and uplift the cultural identity of the city’s areas where a significant portion of the population is comprised of people of color, Indigenous people, and/or immigrant (POCII) communities.**

a. Partner with the Cultural District residents, cultural workers, artists, entrepreneurs, businesses, institutions, and other levels of government to develop multi-faceted strategies that elevate the district’s cultural and linguistic identity.

b. Partner with POCII entrepreneurs and business owners to create new tools that help them retain and expand commercial activities.

c. Provide more flexible response to and support for efforts that help Cultural Districts thrive. This includes, but is not limited to, facilitating increased street activation by addressing regulatory barriers and amplifying the impact of Special Service Districts and the City’s Great Streets Program.

d. Current City policies, resources, and departmental work will be prioritized to accelerate racially equitable outcomes in commercial vitality, stable housing, and infrastructure within the District area.

e. Help create and prioritize the implementation of cooperative-based economic and housing development strategies such as cooperatively-owned housing and commercial land trusts to secure long-term affordability and greater equitable outcomes for POCII.

f. Promote Cultural Districts as prime areas for ethical tourism by aligning and leveraging funding and programs with key regional partners such as Meet Minneapolis and Greater MSP.

<!-- page 165 -->
**POLICY 35**

## Innovative Housing Types
### Pursue innovative housing types and creative housing programs to help meet existing and future housing needs.

**The demand for affordable housing choices combined with a growing population and changing desires often results in innovative concepts for housing.** Sometimes these housing types, such as cooperative housing, condominiums, bungalow courts, and single room occupancy units, are not new; they were prominent at other times in history, in other parts of the United States or in other countries. Having a broad understanding of both renewed and new housing options and the opportunities they present will help the City meet the demand for housing choices.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to pursue innovative housing types and creative housing programs to help meet existing and future housing needs.**

a. Support community driven innovative housing solutions, such as prefabricated and manufactured housing, 3-D printed housing, and tiny houses.

b. Review and revise existing policies, programs, and regulations to remove barriers and support innovative, energy efficient, and creative housing options, such as multi-generational housing that supports large family structures, single room occupancy, shared housing, co-housing, and cooperative-housing.

c. Invest in the training and expansion of housing code enforcement to monitor and ensure owner-occupant and investment properties are meeting the standard of building maintenance and health conditions.

d. Allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on both owner occupied and non-owner occupied property, develop a set of ADU templates that meet City codes to ease ADU construction and allow the use of tiny homes and other alternative housing as ADUs.

e. Allow new forms of intentional community cluster housing to house people transitioning out of homelessness, especially forms of housing that are supported by funding from the healthcare system.

<!-- page 166 -->
#### POLICY 36

# Innovative Housing Strategies and Data-Driven Decisions
## Pursue innovative housing strategies to maximize the creation and preservation of affordable housing; use data and research to guide and evaluate housing priorities, policies, and programs.

**In recent years, the City of Minneapolis has annually provided $10 million to aid in the production and preservation of affordable housing units.** These City resources, coupled with state and federal resources, have not been enough to meet the minimum projected housing needs suggested by the Metropolitan Council, the regional policy-making body, planning agency, and provider of essential services for seven counties in the Twin Cities metro, nor are they enough to meet the true demand for affordable housing in Minneapolis. More must be done. The City needs new and innovative strategies to successfully meet the Allocation of Affordable Housing Need goals set by the Metropolitan Council, as well as the affordable housing development and preservation goals of this comprehensive plan.

Access to data and the tools, staff, and resources needed to analyze that data to inform priorities, policies, and programs is paramount to achieving success in Minneapolis’ housing work. The City has access to companies and organizations, such as the University of Minnesota and others, that are conducting research in housing policy and programs, as well as harnessing new and existing data sets in innovative ways to better inform, evaluate, and understand existing conditions.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to pursue innovative housing strategies to maximize the creation and preservation of affordable housing. In addition, use data and research to guide and evaluate housing priorities, policies and programs.**

a. Explore new strategies and tools to create and preserve affordable housing throughout the city, such as inclusionary zoning and naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) preservation.

b. Continue to explore opportunities to expand and maximize local, regional, state, and federal affordable housing resources, partnerships, and tools.

c. Engage in regional dialogue and collaboration to expand affordable housing resources and tools.

d. Conduct and refresh housing market and needs analyses by real estate analysts on a regular basis. Use this information to establish programs and set priorities and targets geographically.

e. Examine and review data to understand how areas of the city change and how that will affect public policy, including data such as the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) healthy neighborhood indicators, rates of tax delinquency

<!-- page 167 -->
Plan Policies

f. and foreclosure, building permit activity, vacant property lists, sales prices, and ownership tenure.

g. Maintain a local affordable housing database as a tool for studying trends over time in the development of affordable and mixed-income housing projects.

h. Incorporate community engagement in housing research and data analysis.

i. Develop competitive selection criteria to prioritize the greatest needs in the allocation of affordable housing resources, expanding housing choice and preventing housing displacement throughout the city.

j. Coordinate with the Results Minneapolis team to create a methodology for measuring the success of the 2040 Plan. Establish measurable goals for equity and affordable housing and report annually.

k. Establish specific affordable housing goals for all neighborhoods.

l. Prioritize data driven narratives in policy making.

<!-- page 168 -->
#### POLICY 37

# Mixed Income Housing
## Promote mixed-income development throughout the city.

**The development of new housing in Minneapolis is mostly occurring in amenity-rich areas with access to transportation choices, jobs, goods, services, and recreation.** The cost of this new housing is typically out of reach for those making the city’s median household income. In Minneapolis, the median household income is $52,611 and the median family income is $72,970. The market alone will not deliver new affordable housing units to many of the city’s existing residents. *Affordable housing* is rental housing with rent and income restrictions (typically 60% of Area Median Income or below) or housing for homeownership with income restrictions (typically less than 80 percent of Area Median Income) as governed by local, state and federal housing assistance programs. This is in comparison to *Housing Affordability*, which is access to homeownership or rental options based on housing price relative to household income.

City intervention may be needed throughout the City to support mixed-income housing, including both market rate and affordable housing, at all levels of affordability.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to promote mixed-income development throughout the city.**

a. Create and refine policies, programs, regulations, and other tools to develop mixed-income housing throughout the city for ownership and rental housing.

b. Expand the City’s inclusionary housing policies to apply to newly constructed housing developments throughout the city and explore applying inclusionary housing policies to substantial housing rehabilitations.

c. Cultivate a culture of mixed-income housing production.

<!-- page 169 -->
### POLICY 38

# Affordable Housing near Transit and Job Centers
## Create more affordable housing near transit and job centers.

**Housing near transit and job centers not only aids in reducing Minneapolis’ greenhouse gas emissions, it can also help reduce overall living expenses by lowering transportation costs, primarily those of automobile ownership.** The Center for Neighborhood Technology estimates the annual cost of owning an automobile to be approximately $8,000. Households that can reduce their number of automobiles can save that money or use it for other living costs.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to create more affordable housing near transit and job centers.**

a. Maximize opportunities to create affordable housing, including senior housing and multigenerational housing, near transit stations and along high-frequency transit corridors.

b. Identify and pursue opportunities to acquire and assemble vacant and for-sale properties for affordable housing near transit stations and along transit corridors.

c. Improve coordination within the City enterprise and with outside jurisdictions to identify opportunities to increase housing density and affordability along transit corridors and near job centers.

d. Promote a diversity of housing options throughout the city, especially in places near job employment opportunities, commercial goods and services, and educational institutions.

e. Support education and housing stability by encouraging the development of larger, family-supportive housing units (with at least two bedrooms) in close proximity to Minneapolis Public Schools and along Minneapolis Walking Routes for Youth.

<!-- page 170 -->
#### POLICY 39

# Fair Housing
## Expand fair housing choice and access throughout the city.

**Minneapolis, like all cities in the region and nation that utilize HUD grants, has the responsibility to take meaningful action to eliminate discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.** This means examining policies, regulations, programs and actions that the City and its partners take to assess their impact on affordable housing and the ability of people of color, indigenous people, LGBTQ+, senior residents, families with children, etc. - to make housing choices in an environment free from discriminatory practices – referred to as “fair housing choice”. City decisions regarding housing policy, investment, land use, and zoning have a direct and profound impact on affordable housing and fair housing choice, shaping the city’s and region’s potential diversity, growth, and opportunity for all.

The City’s work to eliminate barriers to fair housing requires ongoing policy development, strategy implementation, and evaluation. This work is informed by data and robust community and stakeholder engagement. Racial disparities developed in large part as a result of discriminatory policy; proactive policy and strategies will be required to eliminate these disparities. Fair housing barriers are regional in nature. The City will participate in regional efforts to eliminate racial disparities and fair housing barriers.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to expand fair housing choice and access throughout the city.**

a. Participate in regional collaboration to eliminate fair housing barriers, including the completion of a fair housing assessment at least every five years, to be informed by robust community and stakeholder engagement.

b. Annually establish, review, assess and implement strategies for removing barriers to fair housing choice, using feedback from community and stakeholder engagement of the people most impacted by these barriers.

c. Disseminate fair housing information and resources, with a particular focus on empowering people of color, indigenous people, low-income residents, and cultural communities.

d. Conduct fair housing testing to ensure compliance in the rental housing community with fair housing law.

e. Produce more affordable housing.

f. Expand affordable homeownership opportunities and rental options for residents across the entire city.

g. Support housing options that allow for aging in place, both within a community and at home.

<!-- page 171 -->
**POLICY 40**

# Homelessness
## Eliminate homelessness through safe, stable, and affordable housing opportunities and strategies for homeless youth, singles, and families.

**Homelessness affects the lives of many people who do not have a stable and permanent housing situation.** This diverse population includes families with children, unaccompanied youth & young adults, LGBTQ+, those chronically ill, single adults, fixed-income seniors, non-traditional families, victims of human trafficking, veterans, individuals released from prison, and those displaced due to domestic violence; each requiring different kinds of resources and care. People experiencing homelessness may continue in that state without help from a regional support network and housing assistance.

As a city we are experiencing a shortage of housing for households at or below 30 percent of area median income. The matter intensifies for those who may face a lack of employment, chronic physical and mental health conditions, violence, trauma and/or the lack of transportation to access a job, appointments, or support services such as child care and counselling. This results in higher rates of homelessness, dislocation, and crowded and unsafe living conditions for thousands of residents annually – and it disproportionately impacts communities of color and indigenous people. **(Figure P40.1).**

Access to stable and safe housing that people can afford and essential support services are at the core of city efforts to prevent and eliminate homelessness. Minneapolis will strengthen coordination with local and regional partners within the seven county Metropolitan

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 172 -->
Council to develop unified goals, strategies, and programs to prevent homelessness and to help those experiencing homelessness, acknowledging that this issue is not confined by municipal boundaries. Important strategies include efforts to prevent tenant evictions, provide timely response to emergency rental assistance and other housing crisis, while providing community and home-based supports.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to eliminate homelessness through safe, stable, and affordable housing opportunities and strategies for homeless youth, singles, and families.**

a. Strengthen the City’s coordination with local and regional partners and local service providers to have a strong regional network, aligned with state goals, to financially support and develop strategies to address and prevent homelessness.

b. Ensure that City housing programs are aligned with county and state goals to end homelessness.

c. Prioritize the enhancement of local shelter safety methods and systems.

d. Support greater access to emergency shelters, drop-in centers, soup kitchens, and other urgent or day-use services.

e. Strengthen City efforts to engage directly with people experiencing homelessness to understand their stories and situations and focus on improving their health and safety by supporting the Minneapolis Police Department homeless and vulnerable population initiative, street outreach services, and other engagement efforts.

f. Support and expand low barrier housing opportunities to better serve households with criminal and credit reports through rental housing that serves tenants with the greatest barriers to securing housing, such as having no or very low income, poor rental history and past evictions, or criminal histories.

g. Collaborate with local and regional partners to expand housing programs beyond those that serve families to address other populations such as transitional supportive services for young adults aging out of the foster care system.

h. Create a regulatory framework to allow new rooming houses, single room occupancy units, and other forms of transitional housing.

<!-- page 173 -->
**POLICY 41**

## Tenant Protections
### Protect tenants’ rights, improve living conditions in rental housing, and ensure renters can fully participate in community life.

**In Minneapolis nearly 51 percent of residents rent their housing.** Renters in Minneapolis are also more likely to be people of color and indigenous people. Increased rents, decreased or stagnant incomes, and the loss of affordable housing units have challenged many residents in their search for affordable housing, and have put many renters at risk of living in housing that may not be decent, affordable, healthy, or safe. These factors also put renters at greater risk of eviction, which exacerbates housing instability.

Ensuring long-term housing stability is essential to the success of the city and its residents. This requires investments in rental housing quality, affordability, and access. In addition, investments in resident’s ability to protect their civil rights aids in their ability to overcome housing barriers by improving access to safe, decent, and affordable housing; supporting their ability to participate fully in community life.

The City is actively working to strengthen protections for tenants. There are barriers under state statute to certain types of tenant protection initiatives. However, the City will continue to engage with stakeholders to determine how tenant protections can be enhanced at the local level.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to protect tenants’ rights, improve living conditions in rental housing, and ensure renters can fully participate in community life.**

a. Emphasize the value and contributions of renters to the City and communities.

b. Focus City policies and resources on equitably promoting the ability of tenants to secure and maintain stable housing, including increased City participation in Tenant Remedies Actions.

c. Ensure tenants and landlords are aware of their rights in their native language by providing materials in commonly spoken languages of Minneapolis residents.

d. Provide funding to community-based organizations that proactively help tenants understand and enforce their rights, and assist financially with emergency housing relocation.

e. Identify and implement policy, financial, regulatory, and other incentives and disincentives that reduce evictions, support source of income protection, and expand tenant protections.

f. Create incentives to increase landlord participation in rental assistance programs and other initiatives to serve tenants with the greatest barriers to securing housing.

g. Ensure rental housing is well-maintained, healthy, and safe through proactive policies and programs for property owners and managers, including trainings and maintenance resources.

h. Continue to investigate and address tenants’ livability, health, and safety concerns.

<!-- page 174 -->
**POLICY 42**

# Expand Homeownership
## Improve access to homeownership, especially among low-income residents, people of color, and indigenous people.

**Homeownership has given generations of Minneapolis residents the opportunity for housing stability and wealth development.** However, these opportunities have not historically been available to all city residents. The combination of past racially restrictive housing policies and current lending practices have significantly reduced homeownership opportunities for people of color in particular African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and indigenous people.

Although income is the largest factor in purchasing a home, even high-income households of color still face denied access to credit or are issued higher loan origination rates. In 2005, according to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan data, very high-income African-Americans, Hispanic, and Asian applicants with incomes of more than $157,000 per year had denial rates higher than white applicants with incomes of less than $39,250 per year, with the greatest disparities among African-American applicants. In 2018, the Department of Justice settled its second-largest residential fair-lending case for $175 million, finding that the nation’s largest home mortgage lender participated in discriminatory lending practices. Borrowers of color were directed to sub-prime loans, charged higher fees, and received higher interest rates while white borrowers with the same credit risk profile were directed to less risky and more traditional mortgage products. When the housing market crashed in 2008, mostly subprime loan borrowers – largely households of color – faced foreclosure, lost the equity in their homes, and had to re-enter the rental housing market with damaged credit and limited assets.

Today in Minneapolis, there is a 36 percentage point gap between households of color that own their home versus white households. Over 59 percent of white non-Hispanic households own their home, while less than 21 percent of African-American and American Indian households own their home. Just under 25 percent of Hispanic households own their home **(Figure P42.1)**.

<<FIGURE>>

The City can work to overcome the legacy of past barriers as well as current barriers in accessing homeownership for all people, specifically reducing racial disparities within homeownership. These actions are not just investments in filling the financial gap between the cost of a home and what buyer can afford; they are investments in people to help develop the skills and capacity to support homeownership.

<!-- page 175 -->
### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve access to homeownership, especially among low-income residents and people of color and indigenous people.**

a. Support nonprofit organizations that provide financial counseling and homebuyer education to build homeownership capacity among low- and moderate-income households, especially households of color.

b. Support wealth-building housing models and local credit unions or financial institutions with a particular focus on empowering communities of color, low-income renters, and cultural communities.

c. Prioritize outreach to local developers and businesses owned by people of color, indigenous people, and women, in the administration and development of City-funded housing projects.

d. Evaluate programs on how well they serve communities of color, low-income renters, and cultural communities using clear, measurable indicators.

e. Support services that promote post-purchase counseling and foreclosure prevention and other services.

f. Develop tools to support long-term affordability when the City makes investments in housing, including community specific equity sharing models such as housing cooperatives or land trusts.

g. Develop a marketing campaign of existing homeownership resources that includes low-income residents, communities of color, and indigenous people.

h. Increase homeownership in existing multifamily buildings by exploring ordinances including right of first refusal and/or opportunity to purchase when buildings are sold.

i. Explore the creation of a public bank to further this goal.

j. Explore providing downpayment assistance and loan forgiveness programs to further this goal.

k. Explore and encourage new and innovative homeownership opportunities.

<!-- page 176 -->
**POLICY 43**

# Housing Displacement
## Minimize the involuntary displacement of people of color, indigenous people, and vulnerable populations such as low-income households, the elderly, and people with disabilities, from their communities as the city grows and changes.

**As Minneapolis grows, communities within it will change.** To achieve Minneapolis 2040 goals, everyone must benefit from this growth; historically, people of color and indigenous people have not experienced the same benefits of growth. Without an equitable and inclusive growth and development strategy, involuntary displacement and cultural displacement may occur.

Especially at risk are the many Minneapolis residents who are cost-burdened, meaning more than 30 percent of their income goes toward housing costs – mortgage or rental payments. New investment and increased housing demand results in rising housing costs, which has a greater impact on these cost-burdened households. These households are disproportionately households of color, and disproportionately renting versus owning households: Fifty-six percent of black or African-American renting households are cost-burdened, and 51 percent of American Indian, Hispanic, and Asian renting households are cost-burdened. **(Figure P43.1)**

It is especially challenging for cost-burdened residents to meet the challenge of rising housing costs – and costs are

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 177 -->
rising. A report from the Minnesota Housing Partnership found that the number of rental property sales increased rapidly between 2010 and 2015, with a disproportionate number of sales in moderate-income, racially diverse neighborhoods. These sales are almost always followed by rent increases. The homeownership market is also experiencing significant price increases that affect low- and moderate-income homebuyers and homeowners.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to minimize the involuntary displacement of people of color, indigenous people, and vulnerable populations, such as low-income households, the elderly, and people with disabilities, from their communities as the city grows and changes.**

a. Look at early indicators of neighborhood change and rents to determine where programs should be targeted.

b. Evaluate City investments to determine whether they will cause involuntary displacement and create strategies to prevent displacement when possible and mitigate it when prevention is not possible.

c. Develop and implement policies and programs that support the preservation and rehabilitation of naturally occurring affordable housing to prevent the displacement of existing residents, for example an Advanced Notice of Sale Policy.

d. Prioritize the rehabilitation and preservation of existing legally binding affordable housing.

e. Expand programs that support existing homeowners in affording and maintaining their home, with a focus on people of color, indigenous people, and vulnerable populations, such as low-income households, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

f. Prioritize the inclusion of affordable housing in development activity.

g. Analyze impact of property tax trends on displacing homeowners, and evaluate strategies to reduce displacement.

<!-- page 178 -->
## POLICY 44

### Comprehensive Investments
### Support coordinated, comprehensive investment strategies in people and in communities to enhance livability and economic mobility throughout the city.

**Many Minneapolitans do not have stable housing, which is foundational for success in school, work and civic life.** City investments in buildings, neighborhoods and systems are important to the creation and retention of housing stability in Minneapolis, but it’s not enough: Because the barriers to stable housing are individual as well as systemic, investment in people is also needed to build capacity for and remove barriers to long-term housing stability.

Investments in people and housing occur within neighborhoods, and these investments are most successful if they operate as part of a comprehensive community development strategy including housing, transportation, schools, parks, and business development. These investments in people and their communities, paired with investments in safety and public health, can help ensure a comprehensive approach to supporting communities throughout Minneapolis.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support coordinated, comprehensive investment strategies in people and in communities to enhance livability and economic mobility throughout the city.**

a. Prioritize programs to support long-term housing stability, including but not limited to wealth-building housing models and the reduction of eviction, criminal, and credit report barriers, with a particular focus on communities of color, indigenous communities, low-income renters, and seniors.

b. Expand coordination with internal and external partners to identify opportunities and strategies for comprehensive investments.

c. Expand coordination within the City enterprise including the Police, Regulatory Services, Health, Public Works, and community organizations to address crime and safety issues.

d. Prioritize the use of housing program dollars where coordinated, comprehensive investment is occurring.

e. Ensure that housing investments are part of a comprehensive community investment strategy to benefit existing residents and improve opportunity.

f. Support local credit unions or financial institutions with a particular focus on empowering communities of color, indigenous communities, low-income renters, and cultural communities.

g. Ensure that every part of the city shares in both the opportunities and burdens of urban economic, environmental, and social life.

<!-- page 179 -->
### POLICY 45

# Leverage Housing Programs to Benefit Community
## Design housing programs in a manner that also benefits the larger community.

**In 2017 Minneapolis’ housing investments helped leverage nearly $50 million of development in Minneapolis.** These investments helped create and retain affordable housing for Minneapolis residents, but they can do more for Minneapolis communities: The investments in housing can help leverage community wealth building, improve access to employment and skills development, and grow entrepreneurship.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to design housing programs in a manner that also benefits the larger community.**

a. Prioritize local hiring, contracting, and development in housing.

b. Prioritize participation by local businesses owned by people of color, indigenous people, and women, as well as community-based businesses and institutions in the administration and development of City-funded housing programs and projects.

c. Encourage residents, especially people of color, indigenous people, and women, to participate in real estate development through the city’s Small Developers Technical Assistance Program (D-TAP).

d. Explore and implement options for amplifying community voices in housing policy and program development, including those of non-English speakers and those from communities with strong oral traditions.

<!-- page 180 -->
### POLICY 46

## Healthy Housing
### Proactively address health hazards in housing and advance design that improves physical and mental health.

**As people spend more of their time indoors (according to the Environmental Protection Agency people spend on average 93 percent of their time indoors), it becomes more important than ever for those indoor spaces to foster a healthy environment.** Poor indoor air quality and indoor environmental pollutants such as lead, mold, pests and radon can have lifelong impacts on health. These conditions and pollutants disproportionately impact low-income households, children of color, and renters.

The design and maintenance of housing also has a dramatic impact on both physical and mental health. Housing design that embraces active and healthy living can include deliberate placement of stairwells, bicycle storage areas, play spaces for children, and social spaces in buildings that foster connections within the building and with the broader community.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to proactively address health hazards in housing and advance design that improves physical and mental health.**

a. Focus resources for housing improvement programs and actions in historically underinvested communities where unhealthy housing has caused poor health outcomes.

b. Support and expand programs and actions that identify and proactively remediate health hazards in existing housing, such as lead and radon abatement programs.

c. Support and expand programs and redevelopment activity to remediate environmental and public health hazards related to housing and neighborhoods.

d. Promote inclusion of active living design components in housing.

e. Promote building and community design that includes public spaces that foster connectivity within and outside of a building.

f. Establish healthy homes priorities, weighing both the housing needs and the amount of vulnerable populations that reside nearby.

g. Encourage, and require when possible, use of environmentally responsible building materials and construction practices.

h. Link healthy housing to energy efficiency improvements in existing housing.

i. Encourage the use of interior landscaping and greening for air quality and psychological health benefits.

j. Adjust design standards to maximize access to natural sunlight.

<!-- page 181 -->
### POLICY 47

## Housing Quality
### Ensure the preservation and maintenance of existing housing.

**Minneapolis’ housing stock is a city asset, not just a personal asset to the current owners.** In most cases throughout the city, the current owners and inhabitants of housing are not the original owners, nor will they be the last. The housing stock is an asset that spans generations and provides shelter, stability and a place to generate wealth – a home to past, present, and future generations of Minneapolitans.

Like any asset, Minneapolis’ housing stock needs to be stewarded and maintained to ensure its longevity and to allow for its ability to evolve so it can be a home to future generations. The safety and maintenance of Minneapolis’ housing is important to the success, health, and happiness of the residents of Minneapolis and to future Minneapolitans. However, it is important that alongside the City’s efforts to ensure the safety and maintenance of Minneapolis’ housing stock, it also makes every attempt to not displace current residents.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure the preservation and maintenance of existing housing.**

a. Promote the long-term retention of housing through maintenance.

b. Provide targeted outreach to homeowners about the home maintenance needs of older homes.

c. Support rental property owners and tenants in maintaining safe, code-compliant rental properties through continued enforcement of codes, the use of grants, and other incentives.

d. Invest in housing code enforcement training and expand enforcement efforts to monitor and ensure both owner-occupant and investment properties are meeting regulatory standards of building maintenance and health conditions.

e. Expand financial and technical resources for the maintenance and improvement of owner-occupied and rental properties with conditions that ensure the continued affordability of the housing units.

f. Explore and implement options for requiring a minimum set of labor standards in development projects.

<!-- page 182 -->
### POLICY 48

## Freeway Remediation
### Recover and repurpose space taken by construction of the interstate highway system in Minneapolis and use it to reconnect neighborhoods and provide needed housing, employment, greenspace, clean energy and other amenities consistent with City goals.

**During the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s, freeways were built in Minneapolis and across the United States to more efficiently move traffic through the city, region, state and country.** These highways accelerated car travel through and around the city, but also decimated neighborhoods. Many areas in Minneapolis were cleared for highway corridors and so-called “urban renewal” housing projects. These projects removed hundreds of housing units and businesses, creating barriers and cutting deep and enduring trenches in neighborhoods throughout the City. The impacts on land value and future property tax revenue is difficult to quantify, but it is estimated that the Minneapolis property taken for freeway constructions would be worth at least $655 million today.

In 1960, the areas where Interstate Highways 35W, 94, and Minnesota State Highway 55 were built were home to approximately 27% of the city’s white population, but 82% of its black population. Many African American communities were pushed into these locations as a result of restrictive racial covenants that were introduced in 1910. These areas were often seen as “blighted” because a majority of the residents were African American and had been subject to redlining and systematic disinvestment since the 1930s. As a result of freeway construction, there were direct and disproportionate losses of residential and commercial property occupied and owned by black residents. Minneapolis’ black residents and other people of color are still more likely to live near a freeway than other residents, which has been and continues to be associated with a variety of negative consequences including increased health problems due to air quality impairment.

In recent years, the disparate impact of the interstate highway system on poor people of color is getting more attention, and more cities across the United States have been developing policies and strategies to repair the damage done by the freeways built in their communities.

There is significant potential in Minneapolis to recover land and space lost to the freeways. This could be accomplished by repurposing or reclaiming space the system isn’t using or doesn’t need and finding ways to build near and over the current system even while it keeps functioning.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to recover and repurpose space taken by construction of the interstate highway system in Minneapolis and use it to reconnect neighborhoods and provide needed housing, employment, greenspace, clean energy and other amenities consistent with the City goals.**

a. Work with the state of Minnesota and other partners to analyze and mitigate the negative effects of the highway system in Minneapolis.

b. Identify possible locations where land bridges and freeway lids can be used over portions of the interstate highway system for housing, commercial, or transit purposes.

c. Consider the removal of portions of freeways, including some exit and entrance ramps, to

<!-- page 183 -->
better connect communities and open land for development.

d. Identify alternatives for using the land on freeway embankments for energy collection with solar panels or wind harvesting; water management and purposeful plantings; and as dedicated public transit corridors.

e. Explore options for how private development could support the construction of freeway lids or covers and other mitigations.

f. Consider how some portion of the proceeds from any private development could be paid to the people whose homes were taken by eminent domain (or their descendants).

g. Support initiatives to reconnect neighborhoods separated by freeways, in partnership with MnDOT and other stakeholders, including improvements and replacements to pedestrian and multi-use bridges.

<!-- page 184 -->
### POLICY 49

## Educational and Economic Access
### Increase equitable access to educational and economic opportunities.

**Just because a city and region is experiencing economic growth doesn’t mean everyone in the city has the opportunity to benefit, access and participate in that growth.** Many Minneapolitans, particularly people of color and indigenous people, face barriers to participating in the economy. These barriers can start at birth and extend throughout a lifetime, impacting these residents’ access to paid work as their primary means of economic compensation. The presence or absence of this kind of economic stability is an important social determinant of health, and can impact emotional and mental well-being. Without access to financial resources, it is also very difficult to address health challenges related to lack of healthy foods, suitable housing, health care and other necessities of life.

Assessing the needs of workers and students who are looking for job and training opportunities cannot be limited to their educational levels or qualifications. People come from many communities and backgrounds, especially among people of color and indigenous people, and may experience historical trauma that presents barriers to accessing opportunities for economic mobility. This requires collaborative partnerships to create solutions that are culturally accessible and that meet the needs of the community. These types of investments will support the healthy development of workers and build resilience for long-term employment and economic sustainability.

However, simply being employed is not enough to ensure economic stability and prosperity. Having access to a living-wage job is necessary for personal and family stability and health – but many entry-level jobs do not provide wages and related benefits at this level. In addition, the lack of paid time off and support for child care creates additional barriers to finding and retaining employment that allows people to address family needs.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to increase equitable access to educational and economic opportunities.**

a. Support businesses in providing fair wages and worker protections.

b. Increase job training, youth apprenticeships, and transitional and temporary employment opportunities.

c. Continue to collaborate with Minneapolis Public Schools and other educational providers to eliminate racial disparities in access to educational opportunities, educational attainment and discipline in schools.

d. Collaborate with cultural institutions and employment and training providers to create strategies to eliminate racial disparities in access to educational and work opportunities.

e. Invest in resources that provide professional networking opportunities and exposure to career and job opportunities, with a focus on target communities based on a criteria of need.

f. Recruit, retain, and set clear pathways for advancement to support a diverse City workforce that reflects the demographics of the city.

g. Increase the number of affordable high-quality child care services.

<!-- page 185 -->
# Plan Policies

h. Consider access to educational institutions, places of employment, and child care services, when planning public transportation investments.

i. Explore and implement strategies to eliminate barriers to workforce training and employment for individuals who have been convicted as a felon or previously incarcerated.

j. Support access to out of school time youth programming in academic enrichment, the arts, entrepreneurship, leadership, and civic engagement.

k. Increase the quality of out of school time programming.

l. Increase the quality of informal childcare networks (friends, family, and neighbors).

<!-- page 186 -->
### POLICY 50

# Access to Technology
## Ensure residents have the technology tools and skills needed to fully participate in the economy and civic life.

**It is important that individuals and communities have the information technology capacity needed for full participation in our society, democracy and economy.** Digital Equity is necessary for civic and cultural participation, employment, lifelong learning, and access to essential services.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure residents have the technology tools and skills needed to fully participate in the economy and civic life.**

a. Facilitate digital literacy and access to technological tools for residents to use in finding jobs, interacting with government and connecting with one another.

b. Remove barriers to private development of citywide information infrastructure.

c. Proactively ensure that all residents have equal access to information infrastructure.

d. Continue to track the use and availability of technology tools.

e. Establish strategy for ensuring every home has access to fiber optic internet.

<!-- page 187 -->
**POLICY 51**

# Healthy Pre-K Development
## Prioritize pathways to healthy development, early learning and school success for all children ages birth to 5.

**Support for babies and toddlers is critical to healthy development and lays a foundation for future successes in school and adulthood.** Research demonstrates that developmental disparities among babies can be measured by as early as 18 months of age, and they widen over time. By the time children are two years old, there is already a six-month gap in language comprehension between infants from higher-income families and lower-income families. This early learning gap is the strongest predictor of the persistent achievement gap in educational attainment.

Years later, this achievement gap becomes apparent. In Minneapolis significant disparities exist in high school graduation. Approximately 22 percent of American Indian students graduate, slightly over 34 percent of Hispanic students graduate, and 36 percent of black students graduate. Thirty-eight percent of all low-income students, regardless of race, graduate. It is foolish to ignore the fact that these trends show up long before graduation; disparities begin at birth and grow wider over time. Income-based achievement gaps open up between the ages of 0 and 5 and stay stable or shrink during K-12, while race-based gaps are very apparent at age 5 and grow modestly at later ages. This suggests that the best opportunity to close or even prevent these achievement gaps is by focusing investment toward the earliest stages of life. The entire community will benefit when babies, toddlers and young children are on a path to healthy development, early learning and school success.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to prioritize pathways to healthy development, early learning and school success for all children ages birth to 5.**

a. Increase early childhood screening before or at age 3.

b. Improve mental health services for children ages birth to 5.

c. Decrease development disparities among children ages birth to 5 by promoting the importance of multilingual reading, talking, and singing to babies and young children.

d. Increase access to prenatal care and targeted home-visit services for new parents, including fathers.

e. Increase resources and support for low-income families to foster economic stability and access to healthy and safe housing.

f. Increase resources for low-income families to access high-quality early learning programs to promote kindergarten readiness.

g. Increase the number of high-quality child care slots in Minneapolis.

h. Continue to collaborate with providers of healthcare and social services, and partnering organizations to support healthy development of babies and toddlers.

i. Explore implementation of a citywide, free, high quality, full day pre-K for 3 and 4 year olds.

j. Expand the use of park facilities, public buildings, and cultural institutions for providing childcare. Consider ways to leverage seniors in assisting.

<!-- page 188 -->
### POLICY 52

## Human Capital and a Trained Workforce
### Develop human capital and a skilled, diverse, and trained workforce to implement economic development strategy and increase productivity, growth and innovation.

**A knowledge-based economy, heightened competition in globalized markets, and the quickening pace of change make continual innovation, commercialization and business creation imperative for economic success.** It is necessary to promote a city in which residents from all backgrounds have access and opportunity to gain and retain well-paying employment that allows them to grow as individuals; a city where employers find the skilled workforce they need to thrive and grow; and a city where ethnic diversity in all fields of entrepreneurship is supported. Employment and training practices as well as opportunities for entrepreneurship will need to adapt to demographic and technological changes to promote growth for all segments of the city’s population and to create a sustainable entrepreneurial environment.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to develop human capital and a skilled, diverse, and trained workforce to implement economic development strategy and increase productivity, growth and innovation.**

a. Design workforce development programs and create partnerships that work to eliminate race-based employment disparities.

b. Explore and implement strategies to increase access and participation in employment training programs.

c. Invest in high-quality community-based, culturally appropriate, and accessible employment programs and strategies that serve to remove barriers to holding a living-wage job and achieving economic self-sufficiency.

d. Focus resources and efforts on building and maintaining a skilled and employable workforce through education, placement, and training.

e. Focus resources and efforts on connecting residents to new job creation and income-generation activities in ways that promote self-reliance and create an agile workforce.

<!-- page 189 -->
f. Invest in Minneapolis youth through high-quality paid employment programs that expose teens and youth to work, education, entrepreneurship, and career pathways.

g. Invest in Minneapolis adults through high-quality apprenticeships and career pathways.

h. Explore partnerships and opportunities to create apprenticeship and training programs for trade professions with employers throughout the city.

i. Invest in human capital development in advanced manufacturing and in roles unlikely to be replaced by robotics, automation, or other disruptive technologies and systems that can lead to professional licensure and occupational certification.

j. Promote healthy, safe, just, and equitable workplaces with adequate protections for all workers.

k. Promote ongoing training around cultural competency to help combat implicit bias in hiring and to support retention of diversity in the workforce.

l. Support historic preservation and creative sector workers through training and skill building.

m. Collect and use disaggregated workforce and demographic data to inform investments in employment and training programs.

n. Remain vigilant about automation’s impact on the local economy with a prioritization of training workers of color and Indigenous workers for higher wage jobs in the new economy due to jobs lost to automated processes.

<!-- page 190 -->
**POLICY 53**

## Quality of Life
### Perpetuate a high quality of life for Minneapolitans that includes safe, open and welcoming cultural and social institutions, as well as natural and built infrastructure.

<<FIGURE>>

**A high quality of life is essential to a city’s economic competitiveness.** A city and region that can offer its residents desirable lifestyle attractions can more easily recruit, develop and retain businesses and workforces. Minneapolis often appears in the top tier of lists of desirable places to live, work, play, and visit. These desirable places are communities that have tradition and history, but are also open, innovative, and welcoming. They have cultural and social capital that cannot be found everywhere: arts and cultural institutions, history, entertainment, unique sites, food culture, parks, interesting neighborhoods, and social offerings.

These cities also have strong public, civic, religious, and nonprofit institutions, access to information and services, robust commercial areas, mixed-income communities, diverse populations, and access to transportation, clean water, living-wage jobs, affordable housing, and healthy food. Residents experience a sense of belonging, stability, and safety. In addition, these are cities where all residents have equal access to these elements, regardless of where they live or their race and ethnicity.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to perpetuate a high quality of life for Minneapolitans that includes safe, open and welcoming cultural and social institutions, as well as natural and built infrastructure.**

a. Promote the identity and vitality of Minneapolis through its numerous cultural and civic institutions and organizations.

b. Promote at the local, national and international levels the creativity that arises from Minneapolis’ cultural diversity.

c. Maintain and enhance the many built, historic, arts, and natural environmental assets throughout the city to promote and strengthen communities.

d. Explore the creation of a program honoring businesses, companies, institutions and organizations that make important quality-of-life and job contributions to Minneapolis.

e. Ensure infrastructure and facilities are inclusive and welcoming to a diverse local, regional, and global population.

<!-- page 191 -->
### POLICY 54

## Supporting Economic Growth
### Support economic growth through City policy, regulations, tools, and programs.

**The City of Minneapolis recognizes that to be successful in this changing economy it needs to improve governmental coordination and streamline processes and regulations, while still protecting public interests.** With changing technologies and businesses types, government must be proactive in recognizing growing industries, and trending uses, that are entering the economy. This means improving regulations and processes that allow for entrepreneurs to innovate and contribute to economic growth, while protecting the health and safety of the public.

Further, the City needs to focus on fostering a climate of innovation and entrepreneurship, developing a skilled workforce, promoting a diversity of economic activity, building virtual, social and physical infrastructure, and eliminating racial and economic disparities.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support economic growth through City policy, regulations, tools, and programs.**

a. Develop a framework for City policy, regulation, culture and staff to be proactive, adaptive, and collaborative in response to changing economic trends.

b. Identify ways for the City to assist businesses and the workforce, in multiple sectors and at multiple levels, to address productivity and technology advances.

c. Identify and remove barriers, such as lack of technical support and challenges in accessing capital and physical space, to business creation and growth by residents of color, indigenous residents and low-income residents.

d. Identify ways for the City to address the changing nature of retail and the production of goods in its policies and regulations.

e. Support the expansion of the green economy, including but not limited to renewable energy, green building standards, energy benchmarking and investment in energy-efficient buildings.

f. Continue to clarify and streamline City processes to make it easier to improve properties as well as to start and operate businesses in Minneapolis, while continuing to protect the public interest.

g. Provide active assistance and outreach to the public, small businesses, and developers to navigate policies, regulations, and processes required to conduct business in the city.

h. Promote neighborhoods across our city for large events and visitor marketing.

<!-- page 192 -->
#### POLICY 55

## Business Innovation and Expansion
### Promote and support business creation, innovation, entrepreneurship, and expansion.

**Sustainable economic growth comes from fostering the creation of ideas and the growth generated from local assets.** Minneapolis has a wealth of local assets that generate and expand industries. Minneapolis and the surrounding region are home to 17 Fortune 500 companies and seven of the top 225 private companies. Minnesota ranks first in the nation in the number of jobs per capita related to medical technology. The University of Minnesota, ranked 4th in the nation for patent creation and 9th best U.S. public research institution, continues to lead in the development and creation of new technology, ideas, and business. Forbes called Minnesota the fastest-growing state for tech jobs. Minneapolis’ regional creative economy continues to be ranked in the top six in the Creative Vitality Index, with a score nearly four times higher than the national average.

Supporting the creativity and innovation that comes from all these local assets will help Minneapolis’ regional economy grow. However, significant disparities exist in business ownership in Minneapolis. Less than 22 percent of Minneapolis businesses are owned by people of color. When compared to the population of Minneapolis, there is a disproportionate underrepresentation of Black and Latino owned businesses. Small business and entrepreneurship create an opportunity to build wealth in communities of color. Having an entrepreneur in a family increases family wealth by 600 percent for a Black family and 400 percent for a Latino family. This presents a significant opportunity to align efforts to support innovation and entrepreneurship and expand opportunities for people of color start and grow businesses.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to promote and support business creation, innovation, entrepreneurship, and expansion.**

a. Promote the conditions for innovation and entrepreneurship.

b. Connect entrepreneurs, with a focus on women, indigenous people and people of color, to resources, including market information, talent, other support organizations, technical assistance, real estate options and capital.

c. Promote business startups and expansions.

d. Attract new capital for entrepreneurs and startups.

e. Explore regulatory changes that reduce or eliminate barriers to innovative and alternative uses of space, especially for smaller-scale entrepreneurs.

f. Support connections between academic research and private industry.

g. Coordinate with the strategies and actions of the state, county, Greater MSP and other regional partners.

h. Align City policies and resources toward attracting and retaining businesses with low negative community impacts and high positive community impacts that provide a high density of quality jobs or otherwise significantly enhance the vibrancy of the regional economy.

i. Work to create public and non-profit incubator and co-op spaces, including shared commercial kitchens, workshops, and access to technologies and equipment.

<!-- page 193 -->
# POLICY 56

## Supporting Small Businesses
### Support the development, growth, and retention of small businesses.

**Small businesses play an essential part in growing Minneapolis’ economy.** Since 2014, small businesses have created two out of every three new jobs in the United States. Over 50 percent of the 44,106 businesses in Minneapolis have four or less employees. Small business and entrepreneurship create an opportunity to build wealth in communities of color. Having an entrepreneur in a family increases family wealth by 600 percent for a Black family and 400 percent for a Latino family. This presents a significant opportunity to align efforts to support small business growth and development and expand opportunities for people of color start and grow businesses.

As Minneapolis grows through entrepreneurship and small business development, including cultural and artistic businesses, existing businesses can be impacted by changing costs of rents in commercial real estate. Displacement of businesses not only results in the loss of jobs and retail, but assets that add vibrancy and social spaces for the community. Long-tenured businesses in the community are economic assets that contribute to the identity of a place, and this is especially true in districts and corridors that have a strong historical and cultural identity. Therefore, we should identify and endeavor to support the continued existence and success of these assets.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support the development, growth and retention of small businesses.**

a. Continue to evaluate and enhance business technical assistance tools and programs to adapt to the changing needs of the business environment.

b. Create opportunities for Minneapolis small businesses, prioritizing those owned by people of color, indigenous people, women and those with low incomes, to close the equity gap.

c. Increase the participation of small businesses in City procurement contracting opportunities.

d. Explore strategies to report data on the results of City procurement contracting opportunities.

e. Diversify business technical assistance tools and programs by creating niche-based programs.

f. Coordinate with stakeholders to identify and improve opportunities to support small businesses.

g. Continue to conduct targeted outreach to raise awareness and increase participation in City programs.

h. Continue to expand on innovative business loans that have low or no interest.

i. Conduct research and analysis of community business and demographic data to enhance the City’s business technical assistance tools and resources.

j. Develop strategies to minimize the displacement of businesses in buildings that will be redeveloped,

<!-- page 194 -->
# Plan Policies

including ways to reduce barriers to relocate the business in the new development.

k. Develop strategies to include affordable commercial tenant spaces for small businesses in new developments.

l. Develop strategies to support the tenure of commercial tenants in the community such as longer-term leases and advance notice of sale of properties.

m. Regularly review and update City ordinances, policies and processes to make them friendlier for small businesses.

n. Continue targeted outreach to fill existing commercial properties that have long-term vacancy.

<!-- page 195 -->
### POLICY 57

## Cluster Strategy
### Promote business clusters by focusing resources and regulatory policies toward developing and retaining businesses in a number of discrete sectors that demonstrate opportunity to advance City goals and enhance the region’s economic strength.

**The larger Twin Cities has a competitive advantage with its concentration of industry sectors that have demonstrated significant growth in recent years compared with the nation as a whole.** Understanding the needs of these industries and ensuring they have the resources to continue growing is important to supporting a vibrant local and regional economy.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to promote business clusters by focusing resources and regulatory policies toward developing and retaining businesses in a number of discrete sectors that demonstrate opportunity to advance City goals and enhance the region’s economic strength.**

a. Support and collaborate on a regional cluster strategy and continue to identify and promote Minneapolis-specific opportunities.

b. Regularly analyze strategies, tools and other interventions to support clusters.

c. Identify and support the built environment needs of clusters, including site assembly, clearance and redevelopment.

d. Identify, build, and maintain human skills and networks that support business clusters.

<!-- page 196 -->
### POLICY 58

## Business Districts and Corridors
### Support thriving business districts and corridors that build on cultural assets and serve the needs of Minneapolis residents.

<<FIGURE>>

**Minneapolis’ business districts and corridors serve many vital roles.** Residents visit them for daily goods and services, and they provide opportunities for small business and employment. These locations form community gathering places, and together the buildings and businesses provide an identity for the surrounding community. Often that identity is a cultural identity that supports the social networks of the community. The districts and corridors serve as a cultural hub not only for residents of surrounding areas, but also for the broader region.

The cultural identity of these districts and corridors are often cultivated by the people, businesses, and institutions that make up these destinations. Economic growth in these areas should not only mean an opportunity to attract new businesses and investment, but to be inclusive in a way that supports the identity of these places for years to come. These places bring vital energy and diversity to the city and region, and they should be supported.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support thriving business districts and corridors that build on cultural assets and serve the needs of Minneapolis residents.**

a. Reinvest in existing commercial building stock to retain its viability and contribute to a high-quality and distinctive physical environment.

b. Support institutions that contribute to the vitality of commercial districts and corridors, such as local business associations, arts venues, and cultural organizations.

c. Support community efforts to brand and market retail districts and corridors as cultural districts and cultural corridors.

d. Improve the public realm in business districts and corridors in a manner that reflects an area’s history and cultures and that invites private investment.

e. Target investment toward business districts and corridors most in need according to objective criteria, while ensuring that improvements benefit existing businesses and increase the diversity of available goods and services.

f. Develop programs and strategies specifically aimed at maintaining affordable commercial rents and minimizing business displacement.

<!-- page 197 -->
**POLICY 59**

# Downtown
## Strengthen Downtown’s position as a regional commercial, cultural, and entertainment center that serves residents, employees, and visitors.

**Downtown Minneapolis continues to attract and retain companies, employees, residents, commercial options, and regional destinations.** This growth can be attributed to a variety of investments, but ultimately Downtown offers an experience and a bundle of goods and services that give it a competitive advantage over other areas in the region. This doesn’t mean the City can be complacent with Downtown’s current successes and not continue to make improvements. The City needs to help strengthen Downtown’s competitive advantage and provide additional attention and support to areas where it’s challenged.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to strengthen Downtown’s position as a regional commercial, cultural, and entertainment center that serves residents, employees, and visitors.**

a. Promote the growth and retention of businesses and office space Downtown.

b. Encourage the recruitment and retention of retailers in Downtown that help office workers and residents fulfill daily needs.

c. Continue to support a growing residential population Downtown.

d. Encourage and pursue opportunities to expand publicly accessible green space Downtown.

e. Continue to support a variety of institutional uses in Downtown that serve students, visitors, employees and residents.

f. Promote public safety strategies for Downtown.

g. Support Downtown as a unique regional destination for tourism with activities during the day, evening, and weekends.

h. Connect Downtown tourism assets with physical pathways and markers, including appropriately scaled markers for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.

i. Continue to support organizations in their promotion of Downtown and the entire city.

j. Increase and improve multi-modal transportation within, to, from, and around Downtown, with a focus on pedestrian safety.

k. Increase trees, landscaping, and green space in the downtown public realm.

l. Increase public amenities, spaces, and free activities.

m. Create an inviting and safe space 24/7.

<!-- page 198 -->
### POLICY 60

# Intrinsic Value of Properties
## Increase the awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the economic and intrinsic value of older properties important to the city’s heritage.

**The city is filled with buildings and landscapes that are important to its heritage and integral to defining and framing the character of a place or culture.** These properties may be a collection of commercial buildings, industrial buildings and old railroad infrastructure, or a set of rowhomes. Some may be local or national historically designated properties, while many are not. The value of some may be more universally recognized – for example, the Foshay Tower; while the value of others may not be as universally recognized – for example, early 20th century commercial buildings along West Broadway Avenue. In either case, the properties have intrinsic value in helping define and frame the character of an area and present opportunities to support economic and business development and, more broadly, community development and investment.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to increase the awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the intrinsic value of properties important to the city’s heritage.**

a. Recognize and promote the value of the built environment and landscape as an asset that enhances community identity and a sense of place.

b. Encourage the rehabilitation of buildings and landscapes that are important to the city’s heritage to stimulate economic activity, house our cultural corridors, act as business and arts incubators, and provide sustainable development.

c. Promote the retention of properties important to the city’s heritage through land use planning, economic development and other investment strategies, and infrastructure planning.

d. Incorporate heritage preservation at the earliest stages of comprehensive planning and revitalization strategies.

e. Develop and explore tools and strategies to recognize and promote properties important to the city’s heritage as valuable assets to the community and the city.

<!-- page 199 -->
### POLICY 61

## Environmental Justice and Green Zones

### Establish environmental justice frameworks for policy, resources and regulation.

**Low-income residents, Indigenous people and residents of color in Minneapolis are disproportionately impacted by the cumulative effects of traffic, stationary sources of air pollution, brownfield sites, blight, substandard housing, lack of access to jobs, and the adverse effects of climate change.** The City of Minneapolis defines environmental justice as the right to a clean, safe, and healthy quality of life for people of all races, incomes, and cultures. Environmental justice emphasizes accountability, democratic practices, remedying the historical impact of environmental racism, just and equitable treatment, and self-determination.

The City strives to achieve environmental justice for its residents through the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, culture, immigration status, income, and educational level in the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of protective environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. The concept of fair treatment includes the equitable distribution of environmental resources and burden. Realizing this environmental justice goal requires the City’s intentional action to significantly engage historically disenfranchised communities to protect the health of all Minneapolis residents and guests.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to establish environmental justice frameworks for policy, resources, and regulation.**

a. Align federal, state, county, and park policies and resources to further support the Southside and Northern Green Zones, which are city-wide geographic designations based on data on demographics, environmental inequities, institutional racism, and underinvestment.

b. Ensure that the people and communities in areas of environmental injustice experience the benefits of local and regional infrastructure investments.

c. Advocate for regional investments that further reduce environmental and social inequalities in the Southside and Northern Green Zones.

d. Ensure that sustainability investments in the Green Zones are carefully implemented to avoid gentrification and the displacement of small, diverse, and locally owned businesses and low income residents.

e. Partner with residents and organizations in environmental injustice areas to determine City investments and regulatory changes.

f. Explore opportunities and implement strategies in all City enterprise business lines to address inequities related to environmental injustice.

g. Prioritize cleanup of contaminated sites in areas of environmental injustice.

h. Create and implement proactive predevelopment brownfield cleanup strategies and tools in areas of environmental injustice.

<!-- page 200 -->
i. Conduct inclusive and accessible environmental justice engagement opportunities in all environmental health-related programs, regulations, and policies.

j. Establish educational, technical and/or financial assistance for all environmental health-related programs, regulations and policies with an emphasis on environmental justice areas that have historically experienced underinvestment.

<!-- page 201 -->
### POLICY 62

## Contaminated Sites
### Remediate contaminated sites to improve the environmental and economic health of the city and its residents.

<<FIGURE>>

**For over 150 years Minneapolis has grown and evolved. Much of the city’s growth has been fueled by transportation and industrial uses that have left pollutants in the ground and buildings.** These polluted sites make it difficult to support Minneapolis’ continued growth and evolution, as the extraordinary cost of removing pollution from these sites makes reusing them challenging at best. Funds and services are often needed to help remediate these sites.

In limited cases the sites and the pollutants present a health risk for nearby residents – residents who are often lower in income and more likely to be people of color and indigenous people. Remediating these sites serves both an environmental justice and economic development opportunity.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to remediate contaminated sites to improve the environmental and economic health of the city and its residents.**

a. Facilitate the removal of site contamination as a barrier to investment and redevelopment.

b. Assist local brownfield grantors in promoting the availability of their respective brownfield grant funds and programs.

c. Support and utilize public funds and proactive planning for site remediation.

d. Continue to proactively advise developers and property owners on options for seeking and obtaining brownfield grant funding as a means to investigate and remediate contaminated development sites.

e. Continue to identify and support program modifications that enable local brownfield grantors to deliver funding and related services in a more consistent, efficient, or productive manner.

f. Encourage and support area-wide environmental assessments to help identify areas of special concern and prioritize funding for future investigation and remediation actions.

<!-- page 202 -->
### POLICY 63

# Food Access
## Establish equitable distribution of food sources and food markets to provide all Minneapolis residents with reliable access to healthy, affordable, safe and culturally appropriate food.

**Healthy food access is a complex issue and is difficult to measure precisely.** However, racial, economic and geographic disparities resulting from structural inequities mean that some Minneapolis residents often have a harder time accessing affordable, nutritious and culturally appropriate food than others. Low household incomes, unreliable access to a vehicle, and lengthy distances from grocery stores are some of the major reasons Minneapolis residents may have difficulty getting healthy food when they want or need it.

There are two main components to healthy food access: proximity to stores that sell healthy food and income sufficient for food purchase. In 2015, Minneapolis had 11 census tracts that were considered healthy food access priority areas. Residents in these areas are low-income and live more than a mile from a full-service grocery store. A much greater number of census tracts have no full-service grocery store within a half-mile. Many of these food access priority areas are also areas of concentrated poverty where over half the residents are people of color. An area is considered an area of concentrated poverty if 40 percent or more of its residents make 185 percent of the federal poverty level. In 2016, 185 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four was a household income of $44,955, or an equivalent hourly wage of approximately $21.61. This same threshold is used to determine free and reduced-price meals at Minneapolis Public Schools. In 2016, more than 60 percent of the students in the Minneapolis Public Schools received free or reduced-price lunch.

Residents living at 185 percent of the federal poverty level are more likely to experience food insecurity, which is associated with obesity and inadequate nutrition. Lowering barriers to healthy food access can therefore reduce the risk and cost of obesity and diet-related diseases.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to establish equitable distribution of food sources and food markets to provide all Minneapolis residents with reliable access to healthy, affordable, safe and culturally appropriate food.**

a. Assess and review the spatial distribution of healthy food sources and markets that serve Minneapolis communities and identify gaps.

b. Expand areas where grocery stores are allowed, especially where there are gaps.

c. Take proactive steps to attract new grocery stores to locations in low-income communities, including providing financial and technical support for grocery store expansion, remodeling or equipment upgrades.

d. Build constructive relationships with store owners to foster improvements in healthy food offerings, as well as as to extend general assistance in business planning and technical support.

<!-- page 203 -->
# Plan Policies

e. Explore and implement regulatory changes to allow and promote more innovative practices such as mobile food markets and mobile food pantries or food shelves that can bring food closer to under-resourced customers.

f. Require licensed grocery stores to stock nutritious foods.

g. Explore regulations that discourage unhealthy food outlets.

h. Support the location and growth of culturally diverse food markets throughout the city.

<!-- page 204 -->
### POLICY 64

## Food Businesses
### Support food-related businesses to improve access to healthy food and advance economic development.

<<FIGURE>>

**Support for food-related businesses and entrepreneurial activity can grow the local economy by connecting people to productive livelihoods and building their skills, while also increasing the availability of healthy food for communities.** The farmers markets of Minneapolis are an excellent example: In 2016 they provided a commercial marketplace for an estimated $10 million to $20 million in sales for more than 800 local food vendors, as well as numerous venues throughout the city for residents to purchase fresh produce and local food products.

Economic growth is most powerful when it builds economic capacity in communities with the greatest need. Supporting food-related businesses can help build this economic capacity in a number of ways. For example, culturally specific food-related businesses can serve as an important economic entry point, and continued means of income for new immigrant entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs of color. Improving healthy food access in under-resourced communities can help children and youth have the energy and focus to learn and grow, ultimately contributing to a productive, vibrant local economy.

Entrepreneurs often lack the capital, resources, and experience with regulatory frameworks to start businesses in the city. Creating conditions conducive to new business start-ups, such as streamlining processes and raising awareness of resources, can remove barriers for new and existing businesses to thrive.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support food-related businesses to improve access to healthy food and advance economic development.**

a. Develop or expand business financing programs to help with startup and capital costs for food processing businesses and food stores.

b. Continue to streamline and clarify business licensing processes for food businesses.

c. Ensure reliable educational opportunities for food processing entrepreneurs to learn about food safety.

d. Continue to review and refine regulations for new food, beverage, and food-producing enterprises.

e. Support farmers markets and other food system infrastructure to provide reliable, accessible venues for healthy food and food producers.

<!-- page 205 -->
# Plan Policies

f. Purchase healthy foods from local food businesses when catering City-related events, meetings, and other gatherings.

g. Integrate food-related business needs into workforce skills and training.

h. Enhance outreach to raise awareness and participation in business financing programs for food processing businesses and food stores.

i. Work to develop grocery delivery options in underserved areas that increase access to healthy foods.

<!-- page 206 -->
**POLICY 65**

# Urban Agriculture and Food Production
## Support and promote urban agriculture and local food production.

**Support for food-related businesses and entrepreneurial activity can grow the local economy by connecting people to productive livelihoods and building their skills, while also increasing the availability of healthy food for communities.** The farmers markets of Minneapolis are an excellent example: In 2016 they provided a commercial marketplace for an estimated $10 million to $20 million in sales for more than 800 local food vendors, as well as numerous venues throughout the city for residents to purchase fresh produce and local food products.

Economic growth is most powerful when it builds economic capacity in communities with the greatest need. Supporting food-related businesses can help build this economic capacity in a number of ways. For example, culturally specific food-related businesses can serve as an important economic entry point, and continued means of income for new immigrant entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs of color. Improving healthy food access in under-resourced communities can help children and youth have the energy and focus to learn and grow, ultimately contributing to a productive, vibrant local economy.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support and promote urban agriculture and local food production.**

a. Facilitate expansion of urban agriculture and distribution of fresh food in the city.

b. Support urban agriculture innovations that improve environmental systems and health.

c. Explore and support technical and design solutions for rooftop gardens.

d. Expand access to resources for urban agriculture producers and distributors.

e. Support communities’ food cultures as a community branding strategy.

f. Explore strategies for providing business finance and technical assistance to new urban agriculture endeavors.

g. Support tools, structures and processes used in urban agriculture and local food production, such as greenhouses, infrastructure for extending growing seasons, and on-site processing of products through regulatory changes.

h. Continue support for existing community gardens and urban agriculture, while prioritizing an appropriate balance between community gardens and land redevelopment as it meets City planning goals, especially in underserved areas.

i. Support soil testing and remediation to ensure healthy soil for gardens and farms.

j. Promote best management practices for the development and maintenance of pollinator-friendly landscapes.

k. Support leasing and explore selling City-owned land for uses as community and market gardens.

l. Explore agricultural easements to preserve agricultural space in the city.

m. Promote home gardening and edible plantings incorporated into landscapes.

<!-- page 207 -->
### POLICY 66

# Air Quality
## Improve air quality by reducing emissions of pollutants that harm human health and the environment.

**Air pollution impacts human health and the environment and the City of Minneapolis is concerned at both the local and regional levels.** Locally, the City is concerned about the effects pollutants such as particulate matter (PM), ground-level ozone (O₃), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), lead, and air toxins have on human health, the environment, and the climate. Health effects include asthma and respiratory conditions, as well as cancer and other serious diseases. The City of Minneapolis performs many functions to improve air quality, such as collecting air samples, analyzing them for pollutants, and using the results to inform policy decisions. The City’s Green Business Cost Share Program focuses on reducing air pollution from small businesses such as dry cleaners and auto body shops by providing funds to switch to nontoxic or low-toxicity chemical alternatives. In addition, the City provides funds to help businesses and multi-family residential units reduce their nonrenewable energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions through energy retrofits, including solar panels.

Minneapolis and the businesses operating in the city must also meet regional air quality standards or face financial implications. With the passage of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set standards for limiting specific air pollutants, referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) continuously monitors criteria air pollutants statewide; if it identifies a criteria air pollutant above its standard, that area of the state may be declared in “nonattainment” for meeting the standard. The state uses data to determine the specific sources or source categories that are primary contributors to the nonattainment, and it must submit a plan to the EPA for returning to attainment that includes enforceable limits and controls on these sources. If businesses in Minneapolis are identified, they may face financial implications.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve air quality by reducing emissions of pollutants that harm human health and the environment.**

a. Reduce vehicle-related emissions through transportation and land use policies, and changes to the built environment, that result in fewer vehicle miles traveled.

b. Ensure compliance with regional air quality standards for criteria air pollutants (O₃, lead, PM, NO₂, SO₂ and CO) throughout the city through education, outreach, air sampling, and data-driven policies, as well as cost-share initiatives that encourage businesses and residents to use greener technologies.

c. Eliminate the use of some of the most common industrial volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as tetrachloroethylene (perc, PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE), through cost-sharing programs and the promotion of alternative products in industrial sectors.

d. Reduce emissions from energy sources, including through cost-sharing programs aimed at increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy sources in Minneapolis.

<!-- page 208 -->
e. Reduce benzene emissions from gas stations through installation of advanced vapor recovery technology.

f. Ensure levels of ground-level ozone and particulate matter at or below the lowest levels recommended by the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

g. Minimize ground-level ozone by monitoring for VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOx) and using the results to inform programs that locate and effectively reduce emissions from industrial and other sources.

h. Improve the effectiveness of air quality initiatives through use of data from 311 complaints.

i. Improve enforcement of noise, after-hours work, and dust ordinances.

<!-- page 209 -->
### POLICY 67

## Climate Resilient Communities
### Ensure city infrastructure and residents are resilient to the shocks and stresses of climate change.

**To be resilient to the effects of climate change and diminishing natural resources, the city’s residents, communities, businesses, and systems must be able to survive, adapt and thrive despite the stresses and shocks caused by climate change.** Accomplishing this requires supporting and fostering an environment where residents of Minneapolis are well-connected to their neighbors and have social support systems in times of stress and shock. It requires a physical environment, such as trees and landscaping, that helps provide shade and passive cooling opportunities in the summer and reduces the impact of extreme cold in the winter. It requires stormwater infrastructure that can handle larger storm events, and it requires water resources sufficient to last through periods of drought. It requires energy systems that can efficiently handle periods of high demand and buildings that rely less on electricity and natural gas. It requires a transportation system that functions throughout extreme weather events, and it requires land use capable of accommodating population shifts due to climate migration.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure city infrastructure and residents are resilient to the shocks and stresses of climate change.**

a. Strengthen connections among individuals and networks while promoting social inclusion and cohesion.

b. Anticipate and prepare for pressures and shocks that climate change will introduce or worsen by collaborating across City departments, government agencies, private businesses, and organizations, and resident networks.

c. Decrease demand for energy and increase the proportion derived from renewable energy sources.

d. Maximize carbon sequestration in soils, including the use of biochar, and through educating residents on the importance of healthy soils in landscaping.

e. Establish an urban tree canopy goal and adopt a plan to manage the urban heat island effect across all communities.

f. Consider climate forecasts in stormwater feasibility and modeling work to inform infrastructure investments.

g. Develop guidance that encourages climate-sensitive design for residential and commercial buildings, parking lots, and open spaces and parks.

h. Increase locally produced renewable energy.

<!-- page 210 -->
**POLICY 68**

## Energy Efficient and Sustainable Buildings
### Achieve steep increases in energy efficiency of buildings through retrofits, design of new buildings, and decarbonization options while promoting sustainable building practices for new and existing construction.

<<FIGURE>>

**The Minneapolis Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2013 and provides a road map toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions with targets of 15% by 2015 and 30% by 2025.** In 2014, Minneapolis passed an 80% reduction goal by 2050 and formed the Clean Energy Partnership with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. Minneapolis has met its 2015 goal of a 15 percent reduction in emissions.

In 2015, buildings accounted for 71 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions; with commercial and industrial buildings accounting for nearly two-thirds of that and residential buildings accounting for the remainder. Despite a growing number of buildings in the city, electricity consumption declined 6% between 2006 and 2015 and continues on a downward trajectory. Furthermore, emissions from electricity consumption are down 31% from 2006, accounting for 81% of the city’s total greenhouse gas reductions since 2006. Improved energy efficiency and cleaner electricity (more renewables and fewer coal power plants) drive this change. Emissions from electricity consumption are the largest share of the city’s inventory, but are expected to be eclipsed by natural gas in the coming years as more clean, renewable electricity is added to Xcel Energy’s portfolio. To achieve the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 we will need to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Successfully achieving that reduction will require a transition from relying solely on fossil fuel-derived natural gas for heating.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 211 -->
### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to achieve steep increases in energy efficiency of buildings through retrofits, design of new buildings, and decarbonization options.**

a. Pursue a deep-carbon building retrofit program, including a fuel-switching component that eliminates fossil fuel dependency from all existing buildings and retrofits that eliminate dependency on fossil fuel appliances.

b. Prioritize and incentivize energy efficiency improvements in existing residential and commercial buildings with program emphasis on high energy users, historic buildings, low-income neighborhoods, and Green Zones.

c. Investigate heating in buildings and industrial energy needs and decarbonization options

d. Require sustainable design practices and principles for projects supported with City financing, with a focus on robust energy efficiency and building envelope and environmentally friendly building treatments including bird-safe glass.

e. Identify and implement ways to encourage, incentivize, or require sustainable design practices and principles for privately-funded projects.

f. Continue to pursue building code and other regulatory changes such as a stretch energy code to advance energy efficient design and building operations.

g. Encourage use of environmentally responsible building materials and construction practices.

h. Update the Minneapolis Climate Action Plan to provide a roadmap, with clear benchmarks, for achieving community-wide carbon neutrality by 2050.

i. Create and implement site plan review requirements to show how development applications align with the Minneapolis Climate Action Plan.

j. Pursue benchmarking and/or disclosure of energy performance of all residential and commercial buildings.

k. Help secure and fund demonstration projects of emerging or underutilized technologies, concepts, designs and methods.

<!-- page 212 -->
### POLICY 69

## Renewable and Carbon-Free Energy
### Encourage the use and generation of renewable and carbon-free energy in the city.

**The Minneapolis Climate Action Plan calls for increasing the use of local or directly purchased renewable energy to 10 percent of the total electricity consumed in the city by 2025.** It also encourages the purchase of green power and supports action to make renewables more accessible and widespread. The City’s 2040 Energy Vision foresees that by 2040 the Minneapolis energy system will provide reliable, affordable, local and clean energy services for homes, businesses and institutions, sustaining the city’s economy and environment and contributing to a more socially just community. Regulatory changes will be pursued to appropriately value renewable energy and provide incentives for its use.

Xcel Energy’s projected 2021 fuel mix for the Upper Midwest includes 30 percent wind and 10 percent other renewables, expected to result from an increase in the use of wind and solar power and by offering customers additional renewable and energy-saving options. Unfortunately, the percentage of Minneapolis communitywide electricity use from local and directly purchased renewable energy has declined in recent years, but the cost of wind and solar energy is rapidly falling, and a number of alternative approaches like community solar are making renewable electricity easier to access.

Ensuring that all residents and businesses can access and benefit from renewable energy and energy efficiency has many advantages. The renewable energy economy presents new job opportunities for workers currently in the manufacturing, construction and service sectors, as well as opportunities to build equity for communities that have historically been underrepresented in the energy field and marketplace.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to encourage the use and generation of renewable and carbon-free energy in the city.**

a. Invest in grid modernization to accommodate increases in distributed renewable energy generation.

b. Purchase clean energy directly through community solar gardens, contracts with renewable electricity developers, utility offerings or by installing renewable energy systems on municipal buildings.

c. Continue to support and advocate for accelerated and deeper decarbonization of electricity supplied by Xcel Energy.

d. Explore the environmental attributes of renewable natural gas and biomethane programs potentially offered by CenterPoint Energy.

e. Expand opportunities for district cogenerating energy systems and decarbonize existing district energy systems.

f. Ease permitting requirements for locally distributed renewable energy.

<!-- page 213 -->
g. Encourage solar-friendly designs and provisions that protect solar access on commercial and residential buildings.

h. Develop a City-owned renewable energy facility concept, which could serve both City and community energy needs.

i. Support and incentivize use of geothermal, hydrothermal, and waste energy and heat facilities, including sewer thermal energy recovery, and other clean renewable energy alternatives in building, district, or municipal systems.

j. Explore and implement carbon pricing, for example through utility franchise fees.

<!-- page 214 -->
**POLICY 70**

# Ecology and Habitat
## Improve the ecological functions of the natural environment in the urban context through planning, regulation, and cooperation.

<<FIGURE>>

**Although the Comprehensive Plan primarily focuses on the future of Minneapolis from a human perspective, the City must also plan for the community’s other inhabitants – plant, animal, and insect life.** The city’s growth presents challenges and opportunities to protect, support, and increase biodiversity in our ecological habitats while restoring ecological functions. Conserving Minneapolis’ natural heritage makes the city more livable, resilient, and attractive – not only for people but for migrant bird and wildlife populations in our habitat corridors, for endangered pollinators in our parklands, and for native plant communities in our landscapes.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve the ecological functions of the natural environment in the urban context through planning, regulation, and cooperation.**

a. Discourage use of pesticides and herbicides and encourage organic practices to improve and maintain soil health and healthy habitat and ecosystems.

b. Eliminate use of neonicotinoids, pesticides that are harmful to pollinator populations.

c. Manage soil health and grow plants for healthy pollinator communities on public lands and promote such planting on private lands.

d. Look at natural resource goals across disciplines and integrate them with planned recreation improvements, infrastructure improvements and development to reduce costs and maximize public benefit.

e. Collaborate with watershed management organizations and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board on land and water resource planning.

f. Design and manage public lands for their highest environmental and ecosystem performance, including the mitigation of stormwater and groundwater impact.

g. Strive for interconnected environmental corridors and riparian areas as habitat corridors and for flood protection and recreation, and create additional “steppingstone” areas for habitat.

h. Manage natural areas in and around surface waters, as well as stormwater ponds and other stormwater treatment facilities, as areas supportive of aquatic

<!-- page 215 -->
# Plan Policies

and terrestrial ecosystems, habitat, and wildlife and as flood storage areas.

i. Encourage use of bird-safe glass and other building materials and features that protect and enhance natural ecologies where appropriate.

j. Leverage partnerships with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, watershed management organizations, and other partner agencies to implement the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan (See appendix) and to integrate and coordinate efforts to improve public and ecological functions in the river corridor.

k. Leverage available land to develop small-scale certified wildlife habitats throughout the city.

l. Explore dam removal to restore natural flow and wildlife habitat on the Mississippi River. Identify support for displaced recreational activities and strategies to offset the potential reduction in hydroelectric power production.

m. Encourage bird houses, bat houses, and other structures that provide important and safe shelters for wildlife.

<!-- page 216 -->
### POLICY 71

## Soil Health
### Protect and improve soil health to sustain and promote plant, animal, and human health.

<<FIGURE>>

**Scientists now understand that the key to a healthy, vibrant ecosystem is the establishment of a healthy soil microbiome.** Improved soil health increases soil fertility, plant nutrition, water quality, and drought and pest resistance, while reducing erosion and the need for environmentally harmful elements such as irrigation water, chemical fertilizers, and biocides. Healthy soils also infiltrate stormwater with greater efficiency and as a result improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to protect and improve soil health to sustain and promote plant, animal, and human health.**

a. Develop a citywide soil health management plan, including development of quantifiable goals, best practices and key performance indicators.

b. Ensure that site plan review requirements allow for landscaping materials that improve soil conditions, including amending soils in previously compacted areas, and discourage those that do harm.

c. Require a minimum level of organic matter content for construction fill.

d. Protect steep slopes, bluffs, and other sensitive areas from erosion and other threats during and after the completion of development projects.

e. Require development and redevelopment projects to work with, not against, site grades and site features. Incorporate principles of better site design, low-impact development and design(ing) with nature into regulations.

f. Reduce impervious cover (surfaces that don’t absorb rainfall).

g. Avoid soil compaction of open areas and restore soils in previously compacted areas.

<!-- page 217 -->
### POLICY 72

## Sustainable Water System Management
### Manage the city’s surface waters, groundwater, stormwater, wastewater and drinking water equitably and sustainably, while minimizing the adverse impacts of climate change.

**Minneapolis has flourished because of its natural water systems.** The city benefits from the power of the Mississippi River, the beauty of the lakes and the efficiency of its stormwater ponds, wetlands, and riparian areas. As the city grows, it is critical to continue to sustainably protect and manage water resources.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to manage the city’s surface waters, groundwater, stormwater, wastewater and drinking water equitably and sustainably, while minimizing the adverse impacts of climate change.**

a. Improve and implement the City’s Local Surface Water Management Plan and continue to implement the City’s Water System Master Plan.

b. Carry out steps toward meeting the MPCA’s “Swimmable, fishable, fixable?” water quality standards and explore additional comprehensive stormwater management and water quality improvement strategies.

c. Work collaboratively between City departments to ensure utility budgets are adequately funded to maintain aging infrastructure systems.

d. Educate and motivate residents and businesses to reduce negative impacts on water resources.

e. Consider climate forecasts to ensure that infrastructure and water quality investments are informed by climate projections.

f. Revise site plan review standards to require soil amendments for all disturbed areas that will be vegetated post-construction.

g. Continue water monitoring activities with watershed management organizations and other agencies and pursue coordinated mitigation strategies where appropriate.

h. Continue providing safe high-quality drinking water while being a steward of public resources and infrastructure.

i. Minimize drinking water waste through infrastructure improvements.

j. Educate and motivate individuals and business owners to reduce negative impacts of road salt on water resources, soil, and drinking water.

k. Encourage district stormwater management systems and coordination with watershed management organizations.

<!-- page 218 -->
**POLICY 73**

# Stormwater Management
## Manage natural areas in and around surface waters, as well as stormwater ponds and other stormwater treatment facilities, as areas supportive of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

<<FIGURE>>

**To protect the city’s water systems, stormwater ponds and other stormwater treatment facilities, it’s essential to manage the landscape surrounding the city’s surface waters.** Supporting healthy ecosystems within these natural areas serves as a defense barrier for local water bodies. These environments have stable and nutritious soils, a diversity of native plant communities, and insect and animal habitats; and they can infiltrate and naturally treat contaminated soils and filter surface runoff before it enters the city’s water systems. Strong ecosystems bordering surface waters also mitigate floodwaters and provide important shading to cool water temperatures during warm seasons, which helps improve water quality.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to manage natural areas in and around surface waters, as well as stormwater ponds and other stormwater treatment facilities, as areas supportive of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.**

a. Use infiltration best practices and bio-infiltration to reduce stormwater impacts on surface waters.

b. Continue work to reduce risk of overflows from the historically connected sewers and work to reduce infiltration and inflow into the city’s sanitary sewer system through infrastructure improvements.

c. Encourage and require reductions in amounts of impervious surfaces. Pilot and promote permeable surface solutions as alternatives to impervious surfaces.

d. Use hydraulic and water quality models and data about infrastructure condition and risks to prioritize and inform investments in sanitary and storm infrastructure.

e. Protect aquatic habitat from invasive species that may pose an economic, water quality or public health issue.

f. Increase habitat and natural areas around public stormwater infrastructure and natural water bodies while maintaining and prioritizing stormwater function and controlling invasive species through an integrated pest management program.

<!-- page 219 -->
# Plan Policies

g. Manage stormwater management facilities to provide habitat for pollinators while maintaining and prioritizing stormwater function.

h. Strive for interconnected riparian areas as habitat corridors and for flood protection and recreation, and create additional “steppingstone” areas for habitat.

i. Explore the impacts of flooding on public safety, the protection of property, public infrastructure and the environment.

j. Manage and design transportation infrastructure with a priority on water quality through the reduction of stormwater runoff and pollutants including road salt.

k. Evaluate and adopt alternatives and best practices for use of road salt to reduce pollution of local waterways; adopt MPCA salt training and guidelines for City crews.

<!-- page 220 -->
### POLICY 74

## Integration of Water Management into Development
### Integrate water resource management into public and private projects in order to benefit natural systems.

<<FIGURE>>

**Water pollution is the result of human activity, especially in an urban environment like Minneapolis.** The City must continue to prevent contaminants from entering the groundwater to protect the water from intentional or accidental pollution. This requires incorporating water management systems into new development, into streetscape infrastructure, and into parks and open spaces. It also means examining construction and demolition practices to ensure the best methods are used to minimize negative impacts to groundwater and reduce the possibility of fluid leaks, spills and improper disposal of debris.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to integrate water resource management into public and private projects in order to benefit natural systems.**

a. Prioritize and reserve the City’s sanitary and storm sewer capacity for its intended purpose and prohibit groundwater or other waste streams from entering the storm or sanitary sewer infrastructure unless the City gives approval.

b. Maximize the use of public property to meet flood mitigation and water quality goals via green infrastructure and other stormwater best management practices.

c. Encourage, facilitate, or require the use of best management practices that minimize or reduce the impact of impervious cover, including disconnecting impervious surfaces, implementing localized treatment of stormwater using boulevard swales directly adjacent to sidewalks and trails, or minimizing the extent of paved surfaces.

d. Evaluate site plan review requirements to ensure flexibility in landscaping materials to improve surface waters, water quality, and climate resilience.

e. Use stormwater regulations to require construction projects to carry out best management practices that effectively improve the character and health of water resources and reduce impairments.

<!-- page 221 -->
f. Use water quality data, flooding data, and information about infrastructure condition and risks to public and private areas for functional stormwater greening practices.

g. Ensure that development near waterways meets local, state, and federal guidelines and requirements for flood protection and mitigation.

h. Regulate development of land adjacent to public waters in a manner that preserves and enhances the quality of surface waters while also preserving their economic and natural environmental value.

i. Encourage use of rain cisterns and storage tanks for diversion from public stormwater system and to satisfy on-site graywater uses.

<!-- page 222 -->
#### POLICY 75

## Waste Reduction
### Maintain and expand opportunities to reduce waste and properly dispose of waste to meet the City’s zero-waste goals.

**In June 2015 the City established a zero-waste goal to recycle or compost 50 percent of its overall waste stream by 2020, 80 percent by 2030, and to achieve a zero-percent growth rate in the total waste stream from 2010 levels.** The adoption of the zero-waste goal was driven by the City’s commitment to foster sustainability through an increase in waste diversion, decrease in vehicle miles traveled on the city’s roadways, reduced greenhouse gases, greater rate equity for customers and other similar objectives. The Zero Waste Plan addresses solid waste generated from all sectors within the city and serves as a road map for the City to achieve its overall sustainability goals, including but not limited to its zero-waste goal.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to maintain and expand opportunities to reduce waste and properly dispose of waste to meet the City’s zero-waste goals.**

a. Encourage waste reduction including less wasted food and donation of edible food.

b. Educate residents, businesses, and institutions the benefits of reducing waste, recycling and composting.

c. Discourage and put a stop to illegal dumping.

d. Develop additional opportunities for residents to properly dispose of household hazardous waste.

e. Provide incentives for residents and businesses to divert materials from the trash.

f. Leverage partnerships with Hennepin County and other organizations to combine resources, expand existing programs and develop new programs.

g. Modify the existing multifamily recycling ordinance to provide the opportunity to participate in an organics recycling program when requested by multi-unit tenants.

h. Support priorities defined in the MPCA Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Master Plan.

i. Increase recycling opportunities at commercial and industrial properties.

j. Develop an incentive program for businesses to divert organic materials from the trash.

k. Enforce existing ordinances and provide assistance to schools and commercial buildings by using

<!-- page 223 -->
**Plan Policies**

partnerships with Hennepin County and other organizations.

l. Promote Minneapolis as a good business location to businesses that use recyclable materials as raw materials.

m. Improve opportunities for people to recycle in public spaces (parks, event spaces, special service districts, bus stops).

n. Encourage waste reduction habits by promoting the purchase of needed items only, the purchase of used items first, renting, and repairing or donating items before disposing of them.

o. Demonstrate sustainable consumption, sustainable building practices and zero-waste behaviors in the design and expansion of City operations.

p. Implement a mandatory recycling program that includes audits, outreach, and education, in multiple languages.

q. Encourage retailers and manufacturers to reduce and eliminate packaging.

r. Explore additional ways to disincentivize or prohibit disposable packaging, containers, and single-use carryout bags.

s. Encourage deconstruction and reuse of materials in order to reduce construction and demolition waste. Work with partners to increase parity of dumping fees.

t. Explore organizing collection of solid waste generated by commercial, multifamily, and industrial generators.

u. Help develop and grow re-use and recycled material markets.

<!-- page 224 -->
### POLICY 76

# New Parks
## Build new parks in underserved areas in order to ensure that all Minneapolis residents live within a ten-minute walk of a park.

<<FIGURE>>

**Parks are a key factor in a city’s measure of quality of life.** They provide undeniable benefits to surrounding communities such as free recreation, enjoyment of nature, and social gathering. Neighborhood parks were a key component of the design of Minneapolis’ award-winning park system in the early 20th century. The visionary park superintendent Theodore Wirth promoted plans for a playground within one-quarter mile (5-minute walk) of every child and a recreation center within one-half mile (10-minute walk) of all residents. Currently 97% of Minneapolis residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, but small pockets of the city still lack easy access to such a critical component of a livable urban life. Some of these gaps are in places where new residential neighborhoods are emerging. Through the Park and Recreation Board, the City provides for parks, parkways, and recreational opportunities for its current and future residents' use. As the city grows in population, it will be important to continue evaluating park access and to build new parks in underserved areas.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to build new parks in underserved areas in order to ensure that all Minneapolis residents live within a ten-minute walk of a park.**

a. Identify parts of the city that have long lacked adequate accessibility to parks as well as areas in need of open spaces to support newly-emerging residential neighborhoods and identify new tools to support equitable park access.

b. Ensure in locations where park gaps overlap with City-identified priority areas for coordinated development activities, that implementation planning includes conceptual design and funding strategies for new parks.

c. Coordinate with the Park Board on parkland acquisition planning.

d. Continue to collaborate with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to eliminate historic park access disparities

e. Enhance coordination with the Park Board at various stages of the development process.

<!-- page 225 -->
**POLICY 77**

### Park Access
## Make new and existing parks more accessible by biking and walking.

**A healthy park system consists of not only high-quality parks, but also a robust network of trails and walkway connections.** Children especially need to be able to safely walk or bike to nearby parks. From bike lanes and multi-use paths to sidewalks and greenways, these routes should be comfortable, safe, and well-maintained, integrating signage, lighting, and safe road crossings. City parks and connecting networks can link to larger regional parks and trails to create a significant recreational and ecological amenity for the entire region.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to make new and existing parks more accessible by biking and walking.**

a. Continue to coordinate capital improvement planning between the City and Park Board in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to and within parks.

b. Consider and address physical barriers to park access, such as busy streets, lack of public transit options, and unsafe pedestrian crossings, when conducting citywide transportation planning.

c. Improve wayfinding between parks and surrounding neighborhoods.

d. Engage artists and communities in the development of place-specific identifiers for wayfinding.

e. Discourage reduction to existing access to park amenities and encourage proactive mitigation of negative impacts to said potential reductions.

f. Continue to utilize Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board planning documents and policies as a guide to determining park access and park location shortcomings.

<!-- page 226 -->
### POLICY 78

# Park Design and Programming
## Improve the design and programming of parks to better serve a changing population.

**Ongoing changes in the city’s population include broader racial and ethnic diversity, a higher percentage of individuals living alone, an aging population, and fewer households with children.** This changes the nature of the demand for parks and recreation facilities. New populations have recreation needs and preferences that may not be adequately accommodated in existing park designs and programming.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve the design and programming of parks to better serve a changing population.**

a. Collaborate with the Park Board to prioritize park facility and programming improvements that will have the most positive impact on equity outcomes.

b. Remove barriers to engagement that limit resident participation in the design and planning processes of parks and open spaces programming through active recruitment of people of color, indigenous people, and immigrant residents.

c. Collaborate with the Park Board to ensure that park design processes engage the community in a manner that reflects the community being served.

d. Identify an ongoing process to measure cultural responsiveness for parks and open spaces to ensure that opportunities, activities, and practices are meeting the community's needs.

e. Evaluate universal accessibility of all parks and open spaces, making improvements to ensure they are all accessible, enjoyable, and welcoming to all people regardless of age, ability, geography, or cultural background.

f. Ensure equitable financial access to park and open space amenities, particularly in low-income communities through strategies such as low- and no-cost options, sliding scale fees, tiered pricing, scholarships, and subsidized rentals.

g. Collaborate with the Park Board to ensure a variety of park experiences across the system.

h. Reduce barriers and encourage community-driven programming.

i. Improve communication about park programming opportunities.

j. Utilize parks and open spaces as places for engaging the community about the place-specific impacts of climate change.

k. Engage researchers, educators, and arts and cultural leaders in the development and implementation of educational tools and programs in parks related to ecology and climate change.

l. Encourage excellence in design of park buildings and landscapes.

<!-- page 227 -->
### POLICY 79

## Healthy Youth Development
### Support the healthy development and education of all children, youth, and young adults through City goals, decision making, policies, and programs.

**The presence or absence of risk and resiliency factors not only influences a youth’s present health and behavior but also has a significant impact on long-term development, health, behaviors and outcomes.** Many negative outcomes, including suicide, homicide, chronic health conditions, chemical dependency, sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancy, homelessness, criminal behavior, criminal justice system involvement and decreased earnings potential, are tied to risk factors that can begin or peak during youth.

At the same time, developing and fostering resiliency factors during a person’s youth supports ongoing healthy lifestyles and behaviors into adulthood, generates positive outcomes around education, employment, leadership, social connectedness and civic engagement, and contributes to a more productive generation of adults.

Supporting and positioning youth for healthy outcomes requires a multi-prong approach that meets the physical, mental, and social needs of youth. This includes access to safe and stable housing, educational and workforce opportunities, and social networks to build their resiliency. The presence of and connection to caring adults in their community supports the healthy growth and development of youth, which includes teachers, mentors, and coaches, and other caring adults in their social networks.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support the healthy development and education of all children, youth, and young adults through City goals, decision making, policies, and programs.**

a. Ensure that all children, youth and young adults are physically, psychologically and socially healthy.

b. Provide safe environments across the City of Minneapolis for children, youth, young adults, and their families and support systems.

c. Ensure that all children, youth and young adults are safely and stably housed.

d. Support outside-of-school activities that promote social and emotional learning, soft skills development, educational achievement, career readiness, and community and civic engagement.

e. Invest in career readiness and career pathways for all children, youth and young adults to increase steady living-wage employment

f. Eliminate barriers that prevent children, youth and young adults from participating in civic opportunities in their communities.

g. Collaborate with local and state agencies, especially the school district, to support policies that promote positive and healthy development for children, youth, young adults, and their families and support systems.

h. Continue to invest in and expand resources for physical and mental health services for youth, which includes a focus on historical trauma.

<!-- page 228 -->
**POLICY 80**

## Development Near METRO Stations
### Support development and public realm improvements near existing and planned METRO stations that result in walkable districts for living, working, shopping, and recreating.

<<FIGURE>>

**The system of existing and planned METRO Light Rail Transit and Bus Rapid Transit lines in our region presents substantial opportunities to develop new housing, employment, and commercial goods and services in a manner that allows people to conduct daily activities without using a car.** This concept is often called Transit-Oriented Development. In Minneapolis, the existing development pattern is supportive of transit, and residents and workers are served by an extensive system of buses and trains. Collectively, the policies of this plan support Transit-Oriented Development, and ongoing improvements to the transit system, in all parts of the city. METRO stations, however, provide a level of amenity and service a step above the rest of the system. And in many cases, areas near existing and proposed METRO stations require special attention to achieve their full potential.

The METRO Blue Line, Blue Line extension, and Green Line extension run in highway and freight rail rights-of-way for much of their extent. This results in a unique set of weaknesses, strengths, and constraints related to the physical environment of each station, every station area has a need for improvements in connectivity and place-making. With strategic investments, METRO station areas can become high-quality, walkable districts for living, working, shopping, and recreating for people of all ages and incomes.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support development and public realm improvements near existing and planned METRO stations that result in walkable districts for living, working, shopping, and recreating.**

a. Allow and encourage a dense mix of housing, employment, and commercial goods and services near METRO stations.

b. Develop affordable housing near METRO stations.

c. Require a minimum level of development near METRO stations to ensure that land is used efficiently near major transit investments.

d. Ensure that METRO stations are accessible via sidewalks and bicycle facilities including to those with mobility challenges.

<!-- page 229 -->
# Plan Policies

e. Identify and implement strategic investments to increase connectivity and support development.

f. Break up large blocks into small, walkable blocks.

g. Orient buildings to the sidewalk.

h. Focus active uses on the ground floor of buildings along main pedestrian routes leading to and facing METRO stations.

i. Incorporate well designed plazas and open spaces into development and station design.

j. Minimize the impact of automobiles near METRO stations by locating parking behind and under buildings, by sharing parking among area uses, by prohibiting the establishment of auto-oriented uses, and by prohibiting the establishment of stand-alone dedicated park-and-ride facilities.

k. Make strategic investments around individual stations that create safe high-quality, walkable districts for living, working, shopping, and recreating for people of all ages and incomes.

l. Allow space for connecting bus routes, bike-share and other first-last mile infrastructure near METRO station in the city rights-of-way, coordinating with development whenever possible.

<!-- page 230 -->
**POLICY 81**

## Social Connectedness
### Expand and promote opportunities for all residents to connect socially and participate fully in the vitality of their community.

**Social connectivity is incredibly important in creating and maintaining the relationships that make our communities stronger and more resilient.** Through programs and the design of community spaces, including parks, community and youth centers, new buildings and city streets, Minneapolis can foster environments to increase social connectedness, helping to improve individual health and resilience and leading to stronger, more engaged communities and greater involvement in City decision-making.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to expand and promote opportunities for all residents to connect socially and participate fully in the vitality of their community.**

a. Actively build the community’s capacity to strengthen authentic engagement through neighborhood associations and City advisory committees and to facilitate meaningful resident, business owner and property owner input into City policies, programs and procedures.

b. Create new avenues to facilitate meaningful engagement with underrepresented and vulnerable communities that are culturally accessible.

c. Expand activity and participatory arts programs for older adults, extracurricular activities for youth social engagement, youth peer mentoring, and intergenerational mentoring.

d. Ensure safe and welcoming community spaces for all, including parks, community and youth centers, and city streets and rights of way, located in all areas of the city.

e. Ensure integrated community centers that provide space for recreational and educational programming, counseling and support services, and socialization.

f. Support and encourage the expansion of public events that bring communities together in public and private spaces.

g. Expand the use of social media to share information and encourage collaboration and civic engagement.

h. Encourage development of intergenerational single-family homes and multi-family housing.

i. Encourage the development and implementation of transportation and wayfinding programs that further enhance the connectedness of Minneapolis tourism assets, including hospitality, local businesses, event centers and other destinations.

j. Evaluate community engagement strategies on an ongoing basis to ensure all communities are reached.

<!-- page 231 -->
**POLICY 82**

## Aging
### Expand resources and opportunities for meaningful engagement and independent living, assisted living, and long-term care housing for older Minneapolis residents so they can be a vital part of the fabric of our community.

**The population of Minneapolis, the surrounding region and the entire nation is becoming older.** As of 2013 (the last available reporting data) 25% of the City’s population is 50 years or older. The City has a responsibility to create and expand opportunities for engagement, living, and mobility for aging residents to ensure they remain a part of the community.

Accessible and affordable housing options, including those with health and social support services, that allow older Minneapolitans to age in their communities or their homes are integral to retaining and supporting the city’s aging population. Currently, a significant number of Minneapolis neighborhoods have few housing options other than single family homes, reducing opportunity for many residents to age in their community.

The city’s aging residents also need walkable neighborhoods and multimodal transportation options that meet their needs. It is not enough to simply provide options; these modes of transportation must also be accessible, maintained and free of snow and ice in the winter. Providing safe and accessible active transportation options have been shown to increase overall health and wellness outcomes for aging populations and will help older Minneapolitans age in their communities as automobile ownership becomes more difficult for some.

The growing aging population is also experiencing a new phenomenon in history – fewer and more geographically dispersed family members to aid in care and social connectedness. This puts more responsibility on both programming and the design of physical spaces to support wellness, safety, and active social and civic engagement.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to expand resources and opportunities for meaningful engagement and independent living, assisted living, and long-term care housing for older Minneapolis residents so they can be a vital part of the fabric of our community.**

a. Ensure access to safe, affordable and accessible housing options for Minneapolis residents as they age.

b. Strengthen and promote multimodal and tailored transportation options, with a focus on pedestrian safety, that meet the needs of aging Minneapolitans.

<!-- page 232 -->
c. Provide opportunities for older residents to leverage their experience and contribute to their communities though volunteering, working, intergenerational engagement and lifelong learning.

d. Expand and promote mental and physical health and wellness initiatives, activities and services for older Minneapolis residents.

e. Use a data-driven approach to inform policies, decisions, and investments that impact seniors.

f. Continue to collaborate with government agencies, non-profits, and service providers to administer senior health care, create housing stability, and provide social support services aiding seniors’ ability to age in the community.

g. Support employment opportunities for seniors.

h. Ensure seniors are reflected in community engagement strategies.

<!-- page 233 -->
### POLICY 83

## People with Disabilities
## Ensure people with disabilities and their families are visible, active, and valued members of the community.

**For all Minneapolitans to participate and benefit in growth, the City of Minneapolis must ensure that people with disabilities and their families have choices; access and opportunity for employment, mobility, civic engagement, and appropriate housing.**

People with disabilities are a diverse community whose members contribute to the success and vitality of the city. Just like any community member they live, work, play, and are socially engaged in city life.

However, people with disabilities face barriers in finding housing and transportation options when much of the physical environment has been designed without accessibility in mind. This makes the ability to physically access basic needs on a day-to-day basis difficult or impossible. Accessible, reliable and safe transportation is critical to provide the community the opportunity to be able to commute and access goods and services.

People with disabilities want and need to participate civically and engage with their community in order to develop and maintain their support networks. The City must be able to create accessible methods for all community members to participate in civic life and promote spaces that are accessible to all users.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure people with disabilities and their families are visible, active, and valued members of the community.**

a. Promote employee and workforce opportunities for people with disabilities by increasing outreach, education and interactions with community.

b. Prioritize and support independent living services, including respite care, nursing and personal care, food access and delivery, and transport services, that enable people with disabilities to live independently in the community.

c. Ensure an equitable path and process to affordable, appropriate, and inclusive housing options in all parts of the city for people with disabilities, their families, and support networks with opportunities for visit-ability.

d. Adhere to City and State policies, and Federal laws to produce accessible information, services, documents, presentations, and media.

e. Ensure and implement practices that will exceed minimum ADA compliance in City services and policies, and access to resources and information.

f. Collaborate with local, County, and State agencies to develop policies and programming for people with disabilities.

g. Encourage the expansion of adaptive athletic, arts, and community and civic engagement programs.

h. Increase accessibility of public infrastructure and public amenities.

<!-- page 234 -->
**POLICY 84**

## Public Safety
### Prioritize collaborative, multisector, community-inclusive approaches to ensuring safety for all members of our community.

**A public health approach to public safety must promote strategies to reduce factors that put people at risk for experiencing violence and increase factors that protect or buffer them from risk.** A multisector public health approach to public safety that is informed by and responsive to the community will ultimately lead to a city that is safer, stronger, more connected, and more resilient. Enforcement is essential to public safety, but it is only one of other equally essential components that together comprise a holistic approach, including nontraditional strategies for reducing crime and violence. In the pursuit of safer communities, it is essential to consider not just individual actors, but also the relationships between individuals, the communities in which those relationships exist, and societal factors that influence the climate and conditions of the city. Influential societal factors include conditions, policies, and practices that create and sustain disparities.

Place and race are a factor in public safety. Systemic inequities must be addressed and opportunities made available for all residents to ensure sustainably safe and strong communities. A public health approach to public safety must promote strategies, including nontraditional practices, to reduce factors that put people at risk for experiencing violence and increase factors that protect them or buffer them from risk.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to prioritize collaborative, multisector, community-inclusive approaches to ensuring safety for all members of our community.**

a. Follow a public health approach to ending violence by reducing the factors that put people at risk for being involved with violence.

b. Expand the use of non-enforcement, community-driven public safety strategies and responses such as restorative practices that can address and repair the harm caused by a crime.

c. Proactively build trust between first responders and the community.

d. Ensure that first responders reflect the diversity of the city’s residents.

e. Maintain and enhance a public safety infrastructure that improves response times to police and fire calls, implements new technologies, provides operation and training opportunities, and improves communication among public safety agencies.

f. Maintain the City’s Emergency Operations Plan.

<!-- page 235 -->
### POLICY 85

# Access to Health, Social and Emergency Service
## Expand equitable access to health, social, emergency preparedness, and emergency response services.

**The competent and efficient delivery of health, social, and emergency services is paramount to ensuring that residents have access to the care and services they need on a daily basis, including in an emergency.** This includes ensuring that the availability and delivery of services is equitable and that care workers represent the diverse population of Minneapolis.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to expand equitable access to health, social, emergency preparedness, and emergency response services.**

a. Encourage the recruitment and retention of a diverse health care workforce and work to reduce implicit bias among health care providers.

b. Maintain investment in a range of care delivery models, including school-based clinics, community health centers and home visits by community health workers.

c. Establish integrated delivery of social services across disciplines, such as housing, disability, physical health, mental health, child welfare, senior services, and workforce services, so residents can more easily access the services they need.

d. Expand efficient and effective city responses to adverse public health and public safety incidents.

e. Ensure that public health and emergency preparedness promotes and develops material, physical, social and psychological resources for the community that function as buffers to adverse incidents and help protect people’s health.

f. Expand the use of trauma-informed approaches to community building to support and strengthen traumatized residents and address the effects of unresolved trauma resulting from violence, homelessness, poverty, social isolation or racism.

<!-- page 236 -->
### POLICY 86

# Healthy Food in Institutions
## Support schools, parks, hospitals, and other institutions and organizations in their efforts to create a healthy food environment and carry out related initiatives.

**More Minneapolis residents are paying attention to what they eat, where it comes from, and how it affects their health and the environment.** Unfortunately, the foods that are best for our health and the environment are often more expensive and harder to find, especially in lower-income communities. Easy access to calorie-dense foods and limited access to nutrient-dense foods contribute to higher rates of obesity, diabetes and other diet-related illnesses. By making nutritious whole foods more accessible and affordable and unhealthy processed foods less accessible, we can help make the healthy choice the easy choice, reduce the risk and cost of obesity and diet-related disease, and boost economic prosperity.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to support schools, parks, hospitals, and other institutions and organizations in their efforts to create a healthy food environment and carry out related initiatives.**

a. Leverage policy, partnerships and funding opportunities to continue, expand and improve local and healthy food consumption, production, distribution, composting and education.

b. Promote organizational policies and regulations that provide incentives or require organizations to promote and maintain a healthy food environment.

c. Support school gardens and farm-to-school and garden-to-cafeteria efforts.

d. Ensure the resources and time for a healthy breakfast, lunch, and snacks for all children in schools and other institutions serving them.

e. Incentivize, encourage and partner with institutions to achieve communitywide health goals.

f. Expand opportunities for the production, sale, and consumption of healthy food in parks, in collaboration with local producers, agencies, and organizations.

g. Support healthy food skills education.

h. Expand school food shelf programs for students and their families which provide free healthy food options for use at home on evenings and weekends.

<!-- page 237 -->
**POLICY 87**

# Northside
## Reverse institutional harms caused to the Northside community by building on the many assets of the community while also prioritizing community wealth building in the form of housing, small business, public safety, youth opportunities, and environmental justice.

**The City of Minneapolis recognizes the institutional harm it and other governing systems have had on the community in North Minneapolis.** To begin the process to remedy these harms and move towards reconciliation, the City is committed to doing its part to build individual and community wealth in North Minneapolis.

With the 2008 foreclosure crisis and the 2011 tornado, large amounts of the Northside’s housing stock has been rapidly converted into rentals causing the housing stock to disproportionately extract wealth rather than build it. To leveraging leverage homeownership as a wealth building strategy on the Northside, the housing stock must first be stabilized. Beyond housing as a wealth building strategy, housing is also a basic human right. Further, displacement causes the Northside to lose its greatest asset - Northsiders, particularly seniors, community elders, and families with children.

While the City strives to produce and preserve more affordable units, it is necessary to balance that with increasing people’s wages to be able to achieve housing stability in a real estate-based economy. Small business development is also a wealth building opportunity. Research has shown small business owners of color and/or from the neighborhood are more likely to hire other people of color and/or from the neighborhood. Small business development can also be leveraged as a form of local job creation. Overall, this will increase Northsiders’ access to jobs, goods and services in their neighborhoods.

Public safety is also a top concern for many Northside residents. The public health approach to public safety includes prevention, intervention, enforcement, and reentry efforts. A comprehensive public health approach with evidence-based practices will help to sustainably interrupt cycles of violence and crime.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to reverse institutional harms caused to the Northside community by building on the many assets of the community while also prioritizing community wealth building in the form of housing, small business, public safety, youth opportunities, and environmental justice.**

a. Take actions to stabilize housing stock by increasing homeownership in interior residential areas with a focus on supporting first-time, first generation homebuyers, and provide “right to return” supports to homebuyers with historic ties to the community, such as those displaced by rising rents or foreclosure or returning home after completing higher education.

b. Increase access to affordable housing options in neighborhoods, particularly multifamily housing along transit corridors.

c. Increase access to financially-accessible youth opportunities in the neighborhoods.

d. Support Northside entrepreneurs to become small business owners and leverage small business development as job creation opportunities.

<!-- page 238 -->
e. Invest in the public health approach to public safety to get to the root of violence in the home and out in the community, as well as address childhood and community trauma.

f. Write a Tenant Bill of Rights to lower the disruptive impact of unjust evictions on Northside residents and families.

g. Work alongside Northside community members to ensure the Upper Harbor Terminal redevelopment project is both an asset and wealth building opportunity for the community, as well as a destination for visitors to the Northside.

h. Address environmental racism through investing in improvements in environmental health and green space on the Northside.

<!-- page 239 -->
### POLICY 88

## Public Services Policy
### Provide services that benefit residents, workers, visitors, and businesses in a streamlined and accessible manner such as housing inspections, development review, health inspections, 311, and business licensing.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to provide services that benefit residents, workers, visitors, and businesses in a streamlined and accessible manner such as housing inspections, development review, health inspections, 311, and business licensing.**

a. Take advantage of technological advancements to increase access to city services and increase efficiency in their provision.

b. Engage the public when making decisions that create, remove, or change a city service, project, or policy.

c. Provide coordinated licensing, inspection, and enforcement services aimed at ensuring attractive and livable neighborhoods.

d. Improve the public experience for customers that conduct business with the City.

<!-- page 240 -->
#### POLICY 89

### Technology in the City Enterprise
### Use technology to make City services accessible to all, make City information and decision-making processes transparent, and provide decision-makers with real-time and high integrity data on which to make decisions.

<<FIGURE>>

.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to use technology to make City services accessible to all, make City information and decision-making processes transparent, and provide decision-makers with real-time and high integrity data on which to make decisions.**

a. Strategically invest in technology that accentuates customer service.

b. Adhere to City and State policies, and Federal laws to produce accessible information, services, documents, presentations, and media.

c. Gather, generate, analyze, interpret, visualize, and distribute data across jurisdictions for use in decision-making by policymakers and the public.

d. Gather real-time data from the physical environment and promote data collection mechanisms for private enterprise in order to improve City operations while safeguarding the data privacy of City residents and visitors.

e. Prioritize data and technology security as a value and business practice for all City operations.

f. Adopt an enterprise-wide Data Privacy Policy to govern data collection, retention, sharing, and use by City departments and vendors about City residents and visitors.

g. Expand programs that support homeownership to include owner-occupied small multi-family buildings as a strategy to support both homeownership and entrepreneurship particularly in communities of color.

<!-- page 241 -->
### POLICY 90

## Technology in the Economy
### Foster a growing technology sector with a vibrant ecosystem of companies, entrepreneurs, funders, mentors, and support organizations.

**Forbes magazine has called Minnesota the fastest-growing state for technology sector jobs.** The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (MN DEED) has projected 16,000 technology sector jobs by 2022 in the state, a 15 percent increase from 2017 levels. Minneapolis, specifically Downtown, is experiencing high demand for office space for technology companies and is home to a growing number of established and new technology companies. This presents a strength to build on, and an opportunity to grow employment in a high-demand sector.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to foster a growing technology sector with a vibrant ecosystem of companies, entrepreneurs, funders, mentors, and support organizations.**

a. Engage with and connect technology businesses to resources and information.

b. Promote and support the amenities of the region to recruit and retain top technology talent.

c. Invest in education and training to develop a homegrown, diverse tech-based workforce, with a focus on Minneapolis residents.

d. Expand technology education and training for targeted communities based on a criteria of need.

e. Draw more investment capital into the Minneapolis technology sector.

<!-- page 242 -->
### POLICY 91

### Heritage Preservation Outreach
### Promote educational, outreach, and engagement opportunities related to heritage preservation, especially among communities that have traditionally been underrepresented.

**Heritage preservation can help residents see themselves and their cultural identity within the city and empower them to more fully participate in civic life.** Heritage preservation can be a cornerstone of community development by retaining and rehabilitating buildings that are meaningful to a community and allowing those buildings to house small businesses, helping to promote economic activity. Minneapolis will increase its efforts to reach the community with this message and ensure heritage preservation is accessible to all Minneapolitans, with a focus on communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities. Making use of new outreach tools and techniques may help to engage more communities and move beyond past stigmas of preservation.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to promote educational, outreach, and engagement opportunities related to heritage preservation, especially among communities that have traditionally been underrepresented.**

a. Create new ways to participate in heritage preservation that encourage more residents, including communities that have been traditionally underrepresented, to engage in and influence decisions about the places that matter to them.

b. Expand outreach around heritage preservation activities and resources, particularly focusing on cultural communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, and other communities that have traditionally been underrepresented.

c. Explore a cultural asset identification approach to expanding educational and outreach activities.

d. Expand outreach to owners of designated historic properties and other properties important to the city’s heritage about the value of their property and its maintenance and reuse.

e. Engage with and educate the next generation of stewards of the city’s built environment to foster appreciation of Minneapolis’ history and the built and natural environment.

f. Continue to increase access to information through the City’s heritage preservation website and through other existing and emerging communication means.

g. Partner with community and education organizations to connect property owners with preservation education and low-cost or volunteer professional technical support services.

<!-- page 243 -->
### POLICY 92

# Identify and Evaluate Historic Resources
## Continue to identify, examine, and evaluate historic contexts and historic resources, with a focus on communities that have been traditionally underrepresented.

<<FIGURE>>

**Minneapolis is rich in history and culture.** The City’s knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the places and properties that embody its history and cultures is constantly evolving and growing. For nearly 40 years Minneapolis has been working to identify, examine and evaluate properties to determine whether they merit recognition as locally designated historic properties, and it must continue to do so. The City’s work has resulted in preserving important place-defining properties such as the Minneapolis Warehouse District and the St. Anthony Falls Historic District, as well as properties that may not be architecturally prominent but are equally important to the city’s history, such as the former home of Lena Smith. Smith was a prominent civil rights attorney and activist, a founding member of the Urban League of Minneapolis, and the first woman president of the Minneapolis National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. As the only practicing African-American female lawyer between 1890 and 1927, she fought for civil rights issues such as equal protection under the law, equal access to housing and the right to join labor unions.

The City relies on this work to inform decisions regarding development, community development and other programs, legislative decisions and regulations. However, for the City to effectively align heritage preservation with the broader Minneapolis 2040 goals, it needs a guiding strategic direction.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to continue to identify, examine, and evaluate historic contexts and historic resources, with a focus on communities that have been traditionally underrepresented.**

a. Explore new methods and techniques to engage communities that have been traditionally underrepresented in heritage preservation to identify historic resources they consider valuable and conduct further research on these resources.

b. Develop and implement a strategic work plan that prioritizes the identification, evaluation, and designation of historic resources that are underrepresented, representative of cultural communities, or within areas under development pressure.

c. Work with Minneapolis’ cultural communities to identify places of historic and cultural significance.

d. Complete context studies associated with the city’s history and overall development, such as the impact of transportation and land use decisions that had citywide impacts.

<!-- page 244 -->
### Plan Policies

e. Nominate resources recommended for designation from historic surveys or listed on the National Register of Historic Places which have no local protection.

f. Proactively nominate properties and districts for consideration for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

g. Continue to promote Conservation Districts as a tool for neighbors and neighborhoods to promote the conservation of notable properties or districts for the education, inspiration, pleasure, and enrichment of its residents, and for the long-term vitality of the city.

h. Identify architectural styles, architects, and resources from the recent past, such as the modern era, and include them for evaluation in future historic resources surveys.

i. Gather existing data on significant and potentially significant archaeological sites and develop maps, and other tools to identify and properly treat these resources.

j. Initiate a series of archaeological reconnaissance surveys to identify potentially significant archaeological resources.

k. Identify and evaluate important historic and cultural landscapes.

<!-- page 245 -->
### POLICY 93

### Stewarding Historic Properties
### Preserve, maintain and encourage the adaptive reuse of historic districts, landmarks, and historic resources, especially in locations that historically have experienced disinvestment.

<<FIGURE>>

**Minneapolis has over 1,000 designated historic properties that embody significant events, development patterns, architectural styles or people.** These landmarks and districts consist of buildings, districts, landscapes, bridges, streets, water towers, objects, monuments, and sculptures, often referred to as historic resources. The City must help steward these citywide assets for generations to come. Effectively helping to steward these properties requires expanding the public’s understanding and appreciation of the significance of the properties, including the importance of materials, details and designs that convey a property’s identity. It also means allowing historic properties to evolve while protecting them from identity-changing alterations.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to preserve, maintain and encourage the adaptive reuse of historic districts, landmarks and historic resources.**

a. Protect historic resources from alterations that are not sensitive to their historic significance.

b. Require new construction in historic districts to be compatible with the historic fabric.

c. Encourage new development to retain historic resources, including landscapes, integrating them into the development rather than removing them.

d. Ensure maintenance of properties through regulatory enforcement of City code, specifically as it relates to historic resources.

e. Encourage retrofitting existing buildings to increase resiliency to climate change, reduce energy use, increase long-term sustainability, and retain historic character.

f. Protect known and potential prehistoric and 19th- and 20th-century archaeological sites and artifacts.

g. Preserve historic materials typically found in public spaces, such as street materials like pavers and lighting.

h. Protect historic resources from demolition and explore alternatives to demolition.

i. Develop and explore mitigation policies, tools, and strategies such as deconstruction requirements, when removal of historic properties or historic fabric can’t be avoided.

<!-- page 246 -->
# Plan Policies

j. Incorporate heritage preservation in early land use and planning evaluations including federal reviews, such as 106 Reviews and Environment Assessments, and City processes such as Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee (CLIC) and preliminary development reviews.

k. Encourage property owners and developers to consider historic resources early in the development review process by promoting preliminary review and early consultation with preservation staff.

l. Identify and remove barriers that hinder the protection and maintenance of historic and cultural resources.

m. Explore strategies to recognize and steward historic resources while encouraging continued evolution of the city fabric.

<!-- page 247 -->
### POLICY 94

## Heritage Preservation Regulation
### Improve and adapt heritage preservation and land use regulations to recognize City goals, current preservation practices, and emerging historical contexts.

<<FIGURE>>

**Minneapolis has over 1,000 historic properties that embody significant events, development patterns, architecture, and people.** These properties are citywide assets that the City must help steward for generations to come. Effectively helping steward these properties requires expanding the understanding and appreciation of the significance of the resources, including the importance of materials, details, and designs that convey a property’s identity. It also means allowing historic properties to evolve while protecting them from identity changing alterations.

#### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to improve and adapt heritage preservation and land use regulations to recognize City goals, current preservation practices, and emerging historical contexts.**

a. Strengthen existing historic district guidelines and require consistent guidelines for all new local districts and landmarks.

b. Ensure landmark, historic district, and conservation district design guidelines are tailored to protect the criteria of significance for which a property is designated.

c. Identify the character defining features and paramount views of resources as part of the design guideline process.

d. Create and use design guidelines for historic landscapes.

e. Research and modify regulations as they relate to demolition of historic resources and mitigation for demolition.

f. Develop, refine, and apply tools such as transfer of development rights and historic variances to retain historic properties.

g. Recruit Heritage Preservation Commissioners that are representative of all residents of the city, including cultural communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, and other communities that have traditionally been underrepresented.

h. Support preservation education for Heritage Preservation Commission staff and Commissioners.

i. Explore and develop proactive strategies, such as a Scenic Resources Protection Plan, to conserve view corridors associated with major historic landmarks.

<!-- page 248 -->
**POLICY 95**

## Heritage Preservation Financial Incentives

### Establish and promote financial incentives for historically designated properties and other properties important to the City’s heritage.

**Currently, Minneapolis’ preservation tools are mostly regulatory, with no local financial incentives.** The rehabilitation of historic properties is often more time and labor intensive due to the level of materials and craftsmanship needed to ensure historically compatible alterations. This labor intensive work more often than not relies on local construction experts, resulting in more of the construction costs recirculating through the local economy than on typical new developments. Statewide, the compounding economic impact of historic rehabilitation incentives is illustrated through the State Historic Rehabilitation tax credit program. The financial impact of the $6.7 million of State tax credit incentives expended in fiscal year 2017 is estimated at $66.4 million. For each dollar of the Tax Credit program invested, $9.99 of economic activity is generated (Economic Impact of Projects Leverage by the MHRTC:FY2017). Providing and promoting historic rehabilitation financial tools and resources will help the City meet its goal of broadening the inclusivity of heritage preservation, protecting endangered properties, and promoting economic vitality.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to establish and promote financial incentives for historically designated properties and other properties important to the City’s heritage.**

a. Establish and promote financial incentives for city wide historic properties such as loans and grants targeted to historic properties in low-income communities.

b. Enhance technical assistance for planning property maintenance, repairs, and rehabilitation projects.

c. Promote financial preservation incentives for owners and developers of properties that are not locally designated but are important to the city’s heritage.

d. Advocate for local, state, and federal policies, programs, and legislation that would enable stronger historic resource designations, protections, and rehabilitation programs.

e. Further expand the City’s strategic partnerships in the field of preservation.

<!-- page 249 -->
#### POLICY 96

## Cultural Heritage and Preservation Recognition
### Explore new methods and techniques to acknowledge tangible and intangible cultural heritage and expand recognition programs related to heritage preservation activities.

**It is important to raise awareness not only of the historic resources themselves, but also of the current property owners, developers, craftspeople, and organizations that make heritage preservation projects happen.** This kind of recognition and appreciation will help promote the retention and rehabilitation of properties significant to the city’s heritage.

The cultural heritage of a city doesn’t end at its buildings or archaeological sites. A city’s cultural heritage can also encompass more intangible traditions and expressions of culture such as oral traditions, performance art, social observations, rituals, festivals, practices related to the environment, or the production of traditional crafts. While sometimes difficult to define, celebrating and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage can maintain cultural diversity and encourage a shared respect within a city.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to expand recognition programs related to heritage preservation activities.**

a. Continue to recognize outstanding projects, programs, individuals and organizations that have significantly contributed to the heritage of Minneapolis, broadened the appreciation of its history for all, and enhanced the urban environment.

b. Design and install appropriate interpretive signs and historical markers for designated historic districts and landmarks.

c. Acknowledge preservation and cultural placekeeping efforts, keeping the cultural memories associated with a place alive, while supporting the ability of local residents to maintain their way of life as they choose.

d. Explore safeguarding and celebrating intangible cultural heritage and other cultural expressions, particularly focusing on cultural communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, and other communities that have traditionally not been recognized.

<!-- page 250 -->
### POLICY 97

## Preserving and Enhancing Public Lakes and Waterways
### Ensure ongoing preservation and improvement of the natural and built environment near the city’s lakes and waterways.

<<FIGURE>>

**The city’s system of public lakes and waterways is a cultural and historic asset unique to Minneapolis.** Public access to these assets provides an opportunity for residents and visitors to Minneapolis to gather and enjoy natural amenities in an urban setting. As the city grows and changes, development near lakes and waterways should be designed to preserve and improve the natural and built environment, ensuring that future generations continue to benefit from the resource that we are charged with conserving.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to ensure ongoing preservation and improvement of the natural and built environment near the city’s lakes and waterways.**

a. Regulate development of land adjacent to public waters in a manner that preserves and enhances the quality of surface waters while also preserving their economic and natural environmental value.

b. Recognize and promote the value of the built environment and landscape as an asset that enhances community identity and a sense of place.

c. Develop and explore tools and strategies to recognize and promote properties important to the city’s heritage as valuable assets to the community and the city.

d. Consider design approaches that encourage creative solutions for transitions between varying intensities of building types and land uses.

e. Regulate the design of new buildings near the city’s lakes and waterways in a manner that recognizes and enhances their unique impact on and contribution to the natural and built environment.

f. Regulate setbacks, orientation, pattern, materials, height and scale of new small scale residential buildings in a manner that is consistent with adjacent property.

g. Use stormwater regulations to require construction projects to carry out best management practices that effectively improve the character and health of water resources and reduce impairments.

<!-- page 251 -->
**Plan Policies**

h. Increase habitat and natural areas around public stormwater infrastructure and natural water bodies while maintaining and prioritizing stormwater function and controlling invasive species through an integrated pest management program.

i. Revise site plan review standards to require soil amendments for all disturbed areas that will be vegetated post-construction.

j. Collaborate with watershed management organizations and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board on land and water resource planning.

k. Design and manage public lands for their highest environmental and ecosystem performance.

l. Strive for interconnected environmental corridors and riparian areas as habitat corridors and for flood protection and recreation, and create additional “steppingstone” areas for habitat.

m. Manage natural areas in and around surface waters, as well as stormwater ponds and other stormwater treatment facilities, as areas supportive of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, habitat, and wildlife, and as flood storage areas.

n. Encourage use of bird-safe glass and other building materials and features that are not detrimental to natural ecologies where appropriate.

o. Leverage partnerships with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, watershed management organizations, and other partner agencies to implement the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan (See appendix) and to integrate and coordinate efforts to improve public and ecological functions in the river corridor.

<!-- page 252 -->
**POLICY 98**

## Innovation Districts
### Establish and support Innovation Districts to employ district-scale infrastructure and systems and to implement flexible policies and practices that allow for experimentation and innovation consistent with City goals.

Innovation Districts are an increasingly common tool in cities used to spur and facilitate growth of quality jobs; to coordinate district approaches to stormwater, energy, parking, place making, green space, and waste management; and to increase the tax base. Innovation Districts deliberately form stakeholder collaborations, bringing businesses, residents, non-profits, academia, government, and major institutions together to organize development, manage district systems, and act as a living laboratory for future-oriented research to make progress on big challenges like inequality and climate change.

The Brookings Institution, Project for Public Spaces, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, among others, all recognize the importance of innovation districts. To make these districts thrive, they must be walkable, transit accessible, compact, and include a mix of residential, business, cultural, and retail uses—these attributes help facilitate established institutions and businesses clustering around incubator spaces, maker spaces, and start-up hubs.

Innovation districts are opportunities to experiment with, visibly demonstrate, refine, and produce replicable models of best practices in planning and district systems. This innovation results from intersecting ideas, cultures, and income strata. Innovation should also reside in the infrastructure and systems of an Innovation District, which should be designed to tackle Minneapolis’s and the country’s greatest challenges, from inequality to climate change.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps in Innovation Districts to support and experiment with new policies, practices and systems and to support and require developments that are consistent with the City’s highest goals as expressed in this plan.**

a. Support district approaches to energy, stormwater, parking, waste management, and public realm systems.

b. Allow for and encourage experimentation and innovation – including through changes to City policies and practices – consistent with City goals and expressed priorities of a given Innovation District such as sustainability, job development, production, equity, and affordability.

c. Support funding for redevelopment opportunities including housing,business development, sustainable district infrastructure, and greenspace, with priority given to affordable housing and/or job creation initiatives and projects.

d. In exchange for redevelopment and district system support, require above-standard developments and systems in energy efficiency and production, stormwater, parking, waste management, and public realm.

<!-- page 253 -->
**POLICY 99**

# University District
## Strengthen the University District’s position in the state and region as a major employment center, a world class research university and a premier destination for cultural, educational and health related activities for residents, students, workers and visitors.

**The University District is a center of music, arts, theater, performance, cultural events, health care, business and education.** It is rich in international and cultural diversity, natural green space, industrial and commercial businesses as well as biking and other transit options that add to its unique identity and sense of place.

The University of Minnesota and the neighborhoods that surround it represent an area with unique assets for the City of Minneapolis and its residents. The four neighborhoods, Marcy Holmes, Southeast Como, Prospect Park and the West Bank, that comprise the University District support and contribute to the value which the University brings to the City as a regional employment center and world-class research university within a vibrant urban environment. The benefits from cooperation and joint planning to create a cohesive District are highly valued by the city.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to strengthen the University District’s position in the state and region as a major employment center, a world class research university and a premier destination for cultural, educational and health related activities for residents, students, workers and visitors.**

a. Foster a unique identity for the University District as a positive,welcoming, and forward-looking place to live, work, invest, and visit.

b. Facilitate communication and cooperation among the residents,businesses, institutions, and public-sector entities.

c. Increase and improve the affordability, quality and variety of the housing stock to help broaden the socioeconomic and demographic make-up of the residents and attract a stable community of ethnically and age-diverse short term and long-term renters and homeowners.

d. Attract and retain entrepreneurs, businesses and organizations to locate near the University where they can benefit from collaboration and partnerships with the University and capitalize on the natural, cultural, economic and educational assets of the District.

<!-- page 254 -->
e. Recognize and connect the University’s park-like campus and riverfront to the City and neighborhood public realm, in conjunction with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the neighborhoods, and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization.

f. Support infrastructure and service improvements, to support increased density and intensity in the context of the surrounding built form and open space.

g. Recognize the cooperation needed between University and City Police Departments to better protect all residents, students, visitors, and employees in the District.

h. Recognize that rental properties in the U District, both multi-unit and single-family homes, are rented almost exclusively by groups of unrelated young people and the unique rental market in the U District.

i. Support efforts to attract a stable community of ethnically and age-diverse long-term renters and owner-occupants.

<!-- page 255 -->
**POLICY 100**

# Place-based Neighborhood Engagement
## Strengthen the City’s robust neighborhood-based community engagement system to ensure that it effectively and equitably builds people’s capacity to organize to improve their neighborhoods.

Neighborhood level community organizing and neighborhood organizations play a critical role in keeping residents informed, connected to their community and empowered to guide and influence decisions that affect their lives. Through past and current efforts, neighborhood associations have helped increase safety, celebrate diversity, build community, preserve housing stock, promote economic vitality, foster a sustainable environment and improve health throughout the City.

### ACTION STEPS

**The City will seek to accomplish the following action steps to strengthen the City’s robust neighborhood-based community engagement system to ensure that it effectively and equitably builds people’s capacity to organize to improve their neighborhoods.**

a. Maintain a place-based neighborhood system of community engagement.

b. Continue to fund neighborhood organization community engagement programs while providing oversight and structure for the use of public funds.

c. Require neighborhood organization level notification of City proposed projects and City public hearings, and encourage full participation in those public processes through neighborhood level review and input.

d. Continue to consult neighborhood organizations so that they may help inform residents of potential projects and other City decisions that might impact their communities.

e. Assist and support neighborhood organizations in expanding outreach to diverse participants and encourage more inclusive engagement to maximize the involvement of renters, people with disabilities, people of color, indigenous people and others who have been historically underrepresented in civic life.

f. Implement policies and procedures that outline expectations on city departments for neighborhood and community notification and consultation.

g. Reform the existing city-level governance structure for neighborhood programs to make it more efficient, effective and relevant to city departments and neighborhood organizations.

h. Promote partnerships between Neighborhood Organizations and Community Organizations to increase diversity in leadership and decision-making at the neighborhood and citywide levels.

<!-- page 256 -->
# Implementation

Overview of how the comprehensive plan is implemented throughout the City Enterprise in policy, regulation, process, partnerships, and programming as required by the Metropolitan Council.

<!-- page 257 -->
# Implementation

The regulatory framework and resources needed to implement the policies of Minneapolis 2040 comprehensive plan are in place. This structure includes a regional framework as provided by state statute, Metropolitan Council policy, as well as City policies, programs, and budgetary and regulatory tools.

This implementation chapter provides an overview of how the comprehensive plan is implemented throughout the City Enterprise in policy, regulation, process, and programming as required by the Metropolitan Council.

The implementation chapter includes the following sections:

* **The Regional Framework:** Thrive MSP 2040 – An overview of the shared vision to guide growth of the region over the next 30 years.

* **Implementation Timeline:** An overview of primary implementation strategies, sequencing, and lead departments or agencies that are responsible for implementation of elements of the comprehensive plan.

* **Official Controls:** Official controls are ordinances, regulations, fiscal devices, and other strategies used to implement the comprehensive plan.

* **Capital Improvement Program:** The City of Minneapolis five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a list of funded projects that maintain and improve city infrastructure. This section provides an overview of the process and how projects are funded.

* **Housing Implementation Program:** The Housing Implementation Program outlines the official controls, fiscal tools, and programs the City could use to implement the policies to meet existing and projected housing needs, and comprehensive plan goals.

* **Consistency Between Plan and Local Controls:** This section outlines how the City of Minneapolis will work to ensure consistency between its official local controls and the comprehensive plan.

This chapter also includes a description of City of Minneapolis resources, including budgets, fiscal tools, regulations, and plans. Additional information and resources within this chapter can be found in the Appendix.

### THE REGIONAL FRAMEWORK: THRIVE MSP 2040

The regional framework is established in state statute and regional policy as administered by the Metropolitan Council as part of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (§473). Thrive MSP 2040 is the shared vision for the region that will guide growth over the next 30 years, addressing long-range comprehensive plan issues such as housing, transportation, wastewater treatment, parks, and water resources. Cities, counties, and townships within the seven-county metropolitan region must prepare a comprehensive plan and update the plan every ten years.

Three criteria are used to evaluate this plan within the regional context:

* **Conformance:** The plan is evaluated on how it conforms to all metropolitan system policy plans for transportation, water resources, parks, and housing.

* **Consistency:** The plan is evaluated on how it addresses every major statutory requirement and regional policies as outlined in Thrive MSP 2040 and system plans.

* **Compatibility:** The plan is evaluated on its compatibility with neighboring and affected jurisdictions and governmental units.

The comprehensive plan must demonstrate “The Three C’s” on a local level as outlined in Thrive MSP 2040. This chapter will outline action steps the City will take to align City programs, policies, budgets, and initiatives and department business plans with the policies contained in this plan.

<!-- page 258 -->
# Implementation

The comprehensive plan is also intended to work with the City’s Strategic Plan and Racial Equity Action Plan to provide policy direction to the City over a ten-to-twenty-year period. Although the Strategic Plan is intended to reflect the priorities and cover the duration of the current administration’s term, elected officials’ support is necessary to champion and implement policies, adopt regulatory changes, and provide allocations for programming and resources.

## IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

The City alone cannot implement the policies in the comprehensive plan. This will require collaboration enterprise-wide, and partnerships with external agencies and institutions to work towards comprehensive plan goals. The City will be responsible for collaborating with local, County, and State agencies to implement various elements of the plan.

Citywide topical plans will be integral to the implementation of comprehensive plan policies for housing, parks, transportation, and site-specific plans such as development projects. Topical plans and the lead department or agency responsible for carrying out the plan are identified later in the implementation chapter.

The table below highlights strategies and the timeframe for implementation for each comprehensive plan topic. Each topic identifies the primary implementation strategy, when the action is expected to be completed, and the lead City department or agency responsible for implementing that strategy.

It is important to note that these timeframes are meant to describe the general sequencing of strategies, and may be completed anytime within that timeframe. However, official controls will be brought into consistency as required by timelines set by state statue.

* **Short-term – (0 to 5 years)**
* **Medium-term – (5 to 10 years)**
* **Long-term – (10 or more years)**

<!-- page 259 -->
# Implementation

#### Figure 1: Table of Primary Implementation Strategies by Topic

| Timeline | Primary Implementation Strategies | Lead City Departments and Key Partner Agencies |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Topic: Land Use & Built Form**<br>Policies and maps guiding the location and design of new housing, workplaces, retail establishments, and other development. | | |
| Short-term | **Zoning and subdivision ordinances** – Continue to enforce existing ordinances. However, the City will embark on a rezoning study to bring existing ordinances into consistency with adopted land use & built form maps, and plan policies, with an emphasis on improving building design. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<ul><li>Development Services</li><li>Long Range Planning</li></ul> |
| Short-term | **Development review process** – Continue to use the development review process to ensure projects are consistent with the comprehensive plan and other City plans and ordinances. | ▪ CPED - Development Services<br>▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Regulatory Services |
| Long-term | **Retrofit and design of energy efficient buildings** - Continue to develop programs and strategies to retrofit buildings to be energy efficient. This includes incremental regulatory changes to advance energy efficient design and operations of buildings. | ▪ CPED<br>▪ City Coordinator’s Office |
| **Topic: Transportation**<br>Policies supporting a multimodal transportation network that prioritizes walking, biking, and transit. | | |
| Short-term | **Update Transportation Action Plan** – The City will update its Transportation Action Plan to implement the transportation policies to achieve the goals articulated in the comprehensive plan. This includes multi-agency coordination to develop a multimodal transportation network to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. | ▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ Hennepin County<br>▪ Metropolitan Council<br>▪ Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) |
| Short-term | **Capital improvements program funding process** – The funding of street reconstruction and maintenance prioritizes equity considerations in transportation programming as outlined in the 20 Year Street Funding Plan. The City will continue to review, prioritize, and fund capital projects that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. This includes adhering to the City’s Complete Streets policy, investments in bicycle | ▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Hennepin County<br>▪ Metropolitan Council |

<!-- page 260 -->
# Implementation

| | and pedestrian infrastructure, and coordinating investments with partnering agencies to support and develop a multimodal transportation network. | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Short-term | **Operations and maintenance** – Continue to fund and complete projects that aligns with city priorities and comprehensive plan policies. This includes improvements and maintenance to traffic operations, streets, bridges, City-owned facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. | ▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Hennepin County<br>▪ Metropolitan Council |
| Long-term | **Aviation** – Continue to work to ensure the City has an active role in ongoing work on regional airport planning. | ▪ CPED – Long Range Planning<br>▪ Metropolitan Airports Commission |
| Long-term | **Environmental impacts of transportation** – The City will work to encourage bicycle and transit use to reduce environmental impacts created from single-occupancy trips. The progress made on achieving climate action goals in the comprehensive plan will be tracked and measured as part of City climate goals. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ City Coordinator’s Office |
| **Topic: Housing** | | |
| Policies guiding housing supply, choice, maintenance, quality, and affordability. | | |
| Short-term | **Grant and loan programs** – Implement comprehensive plan policies for housing through a portfolio of housing grant and loan programs, with focus on affordability, choice, and quality. | ▪ CPED – Housing |
| Short-term | **Regulatory framework** – Continue to enforce existing ordinances, and make incremental changes as needed to implement comprehensive plan policies. | ▪ CPED – Housing<br>▪ Regulatory Services<br>▪ Health Department |
| Short-term | **Inspections and healthy homes** – The City will proactively address health hazards in housing through the use of inspections to ensure compliance with existing plans and ordinances, as well as programs that will help identify and remediate health hazards in existing homes. | ▪ CPED – Housing<br>▪ Regulatory Services<br>▪ Health Department |
| Medium-term | **Comprehensive housing investments** – The City will coordinate enterprise-wide when making investments such as housing projects, workforce | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Police Department |

<!-- page 261 -->
# Implementation

| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | development, or public health strategies in order to implement the comprehensive plan goals and policies. | ▪ Regulatory Services<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ Public Works Department |
| Medium-term | **Affordable housing production and preservation** – Meet or exceed regional affordable housing goals for the city by supporting the development of a diversity of housing types, sizes, levels of affordability, and locations through the utilization of City programs and public and private funding sources. | ▪ CPED – Housing |
| Long-term | **Mixed-income housing development** – Continue to refine policies, programs, and regulations to develop mixed-income housing throughout the city for ownership and rental housing. The City will continue to expand partnerships with local organizations and agencies to implement the comprehensive plan goals and policies. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA)<br>▪ Minnesota Housing |
| **Topic: Economic Competitiveness** | | |
| Policies guiding the economic competitiveness of our city and region, focusing on the city’s workforce, businesses, production areas, and Downtown. | | |
| Short-term | **Technical assistance, grant, and loan programs** – Continue to use and expand the portfolio of tools and programs linked to economic competitiveness goals. The City will develop strategies to increase the diversity of participants in utilizing City resources in order to meet comprehensive plan goals. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) |
| Medium-term | **Community partnerships** – Build strong, mutually beneficial partnerships with community organizations, public agencies, and institutions to meet economic competitiveness goals, with a focus on communities that have experienced disinvestment. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Local, County, and State agencies<br>▪ Minneapolis Public Schools<br>▪ Service providers<br>▪ Higher education institutions and vocational schools |
| Long-term | **Coordinated development strategy** – Coordinate the development and investments of housing, businesses, and public infrastructure in geographic areas most in need of reinvestment among City departments and external agencies. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA)<br>▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Hennepin County<br>▪ Metropolitan Council<br>▪ Minnesota Department of |

<!-- page 262 -->
# Implementation

| | | Transportation (MnDOT) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Topic: Public Services and Facilities** | | |
| Policies guiding the siting of publicly-owned buildings, planning for public facility needs, public safety, and inspections and licensing. | | |
| Short-term | **Capital improvements program funding process** – Continue to review, prioritize, and fund capital projects that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan, including improvements to City-owned buildings and infrastructure. | ▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Finance Department<br>▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Fire Department<br>▪ Police Department<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ Regulatory Services |
| Short-term | **Service provision** – Continue to provide high quality City services to the community, including but not limited to public safety, water, sanitation, and health. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Regulatory Services<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ Fire Department<br>▪ Police Department<br>▪ Communications Department |
| Short-term | **Operations and maintenance** – Continue to fund and complete projects with a goal of improving the current level of service for City-maintained infrastructure, including water, wastewater, and transportation facilities. | ▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Regulatory Services<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ Fire Department<br>▪ Police Department<br>▪ Communications Department |
| Medium-term | **Partnerships** – Build partnerships with local, County, and State agencies to ensure implementation of comprehensive plan policies and goals. | ▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ Fire Department<br>▪ Police Department<br>▪ Regulatory Services<br>▪ Minneapolis Public Schools<br>▪ Hennepin County<br>▪ Metropolitan Council<br>▪ State of Minnesota |
| **Topic: Environmental Systems** | | |
| Policies guiding management of environmental systems and impacts, including city operations, water resources, waste management and recycling, air quality, brownfields cleanup, and energy. | | |
| Short-term | **Water resources** – Continue to fund and implement programs per the management plan to maintain and improve sanitary sewer and stormwater infrastructure, and protect water resources in the city. | ▪ Public Works Department |
| Short-term | **Service provision** – Continue to | ▪ Community Planning and Economic |

<!-- page 263 -->
# Implementation

| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | provide high quality city services to the community, including but not limited to public safety, water, sanitation, and health. | Development (CPED) <br> ▪ Public Works Department <br> ▪ Regulatory Services <br> ▪ Health Department <br> ▪ Fire Department <br> ▪ Police Department <br> ▪ Communications Department |
| Short-term | **Technical assistance, grant, and loan programs** – Continue to use and expand the portfolio of tools and programs linked to economic competitiveness goals such as grants for brownfield cleanups. | ▪ CPED - Economic Development |
| Long-term | **Retrofit and design of energy efficient buildings** - Continue to develop programs and strategies to retrofit buildings to be energy efficient. This includes incremental regulatory changes to advance energy efficient design and operations of buildings. | ▪ CPED - Development Services <br> ▪ City Coordinator’s Office |
| Long-term | **Environmental impacts of transportation** – The City will work to encourage bicycle and transit use to reduce environmental impacts created from single-occupancy trips. The progress made on achieving climate action goals in the comprehensive plan will be tracked and measured as part of City climate goals. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) <br> ▪ Public Works Department <br> ▪ Health Department <br> ▪ City Coordinator’s Office |
| **Topic: Parks and Open Space** <br> Policies addressing existing open spaces and parks in Minneapolis, and those that could be created in the future to enhance quality of life and to improve accessibility. | | |
| Short-term | **Zoning and subdivision ordinances** – Continue to enforce existing ordinances. However, the City will embark on a rezoning study to bring existing ordinances into consistency with adopted land use and built form maps, and plan policies. The City will continue to coordinate with the MPRB to identify opportunities for new parks and open space to meet comprehensive plan goals. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) <br> ▪ Development Services <br> ▪ Long Range Planning <br> ▪ Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) <br> ▪ Public Works Department |
| Short-term | **Park Board operations** – Continue to work with the MPRB regarding maintaining and expansion of the park system and its services, consistent with both the city’s and | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) <br> ▪ Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board |

<!-- page 264 -->
# Implementation

| | the MPRB’s comprehensive plans. | ▪ Public Works Department |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Short-term | **Operations and maintenance** – Continue to fund and complete projects that maintain or improve the parks and open space system, in partnership with the MPRB. The City will continue to improve equitable access to new and existing parks through projects that are consistent with comprehensive plan policies. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board<br>▪ Public Works Department |
| **Topic: Heritage Preservation** | | |
| Policies guiding the protection and reuse of culturally significant features of the built and natural environment, including buildings, districts, landscapes, and other historic resources. | | |
| Short-term | **Historic preservation ordinance** – Continue to enforce existing ordinance, and make incremental changes as needed to respond to changing conditions and further implement comprehensive plan policies. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) |
| Short-term | **Historic design guidelines** – Continue to enforce existing standards, and make incremental changes as needed to ensure design guidelines are tailored to protect the criteria of significance for which a resource is designated. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) |
| Medium-term | **Identify and evaluate historic resources** – Continue to complete historic surveys and context studies throughout the city as needed to provide a comprehensive view of historical resources. As information becomes available, continue to designate resources for designation recommended from studies. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) |
| Medium-term | **Development review process** – Continue to use the development review process to ensure projects are consistent with the comprehensive plan and other City plans and ordinances. | ▪ CPED – Development Services<br>▪ State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) |
| **Topic: Arts and Culture** | | |
| Policies guiding the contributions of arts and culture to a vibrant and livable city. | | |
| Short-term | **Capital improvements program** – Continue to review, prioritize and fund capital projects that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan, including public art projects. | ▪ CPED – Long Range Planning<br>▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ City Coordinator’s Office |
| Short-term | **Regulations for arts and creative** | ▪ CPED - Long Range Planning |

<!-- page 265 -->
# Implementation

| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | **spaces** – Continue to enforce existing ordinances. However, the City will embark on a rezoning study to bring existing ordinances into consistency with adopted land use and built form maps, and plan policies. Additional strategies will require coordination with the City Coordinator’s Office, and community partnerships to implement comprehensive plan policies. | ▪ City Coordinator’s Office |
| Medium-term | **Public art program** – Continue to implement the City’s vision for public art. | ▪ CPED - Long Range Planning<br>▪ City Coordinator’s Office |
| **Topic: Public Health**<br>Policies on health topics related to the built environment, including active living, environmental health, food and nutrition, health and human services, social cohesion, and mental health. | | |
| Short-term | ▪ **Zoning and subdivision ordinances** – Continue to enforce existing ordinances. However, the City will embark on a rezoning study to make sure that existing ordinances is consisted with adopted future land use and built form maps, and plan policies. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) |
| **Topic: Technology and Innovation**<br>Guidance on advancing the use of technology to improve City services and on fostering technology-based economic development. | | |
| Short-term | ▪ **Digital access and literacy** – Continue to facilitate digital literacy and access to technological tools for residents through collaborations with institutions and partnering organizations. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Information Technology Department<br>▪ Communications Department |
| Short-term | ▪ **Technology in the enterprise** – Continue to improve and invest in technology to make City services and information accessible to all. | ▪ City Clerk’s Office<br>▪ Information Technology Department<br>▪ Communications Department |

<!-- page 266 -->
## OFFICIAL CONTROLS

In this section, official controls refer to ordinances, fiscal devices, and other strategies used to implement the comprehensive plan. Thrive MSP 2040 encourages communities in the region to explore and use a variety of innovative ordinances and other official controls to implement their comprehensive plans. Minneapolis does that through its code of ordinances.

### Zoning Ordinance

The land use and built form guidance of the comprehensive plan are implemented through a local zoning ordinance. The City's existing zoning ordinance will require significant revisions to bring into consistency with the comprehensive plan. As part of the regional framework, Thrive MSP 2040 uses community designations to help cities and townships target policy development when updating their comprehensive plans. Minneapolis has a community designation of Urban Center as identified in Thrive MSP 2040.

Below are the land use policies for the community designation ‘Urban Center’ from Thrive MSP 2040:

* *Plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 20 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. Target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan.*

* *Identify areas for redevelopment, particularly areas that are well-served by transportation options and nearby amenities and that contribute to better proximity between jobs and housing.*

* *Identify opportunities for land assembly to prepare sites that will attract future private reinvestment, especially in Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty.*

* *In collaboration with other regional partners, lead major redevelopment efforts, such as at the former Ford Plant site.*

* *Lead detailed land use planning efforts around regional transit stations and other regional investments.*

* *Plan for and program local infrastructure needs (for example, roads, sidewalks, sewer, water, surface water), including those needed for future growth and to implement local comprehensive plans.*

* *Recognize opportunities for urban agriculture and small-scale food production.*

For a detailed description of how the comprehensive plan policies and land use guidance meets the Urban Center land use policies see the Appendix.

The City's zoning districts include several main categories which are listed below. In addition are overlay zoning districts within the city that either provide more flexibility or impose additional restrictions to the underlying zoning district. Maps of existing primary and overlay zoning can be found in figures 2 and 3.

* **Residence districts:** The residence districts are established to preserve and enhance quality of living in residential neighborhoods, to regulate structures and uses which may affect the character or desirability of residential areas, to encourage a variety of dwelling types and locations and a range of population densities consistent with the comprehensive plan, and to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space.

Zoning districts include R1 and R1A, which are single-family, and R2, R2B, and R3, which are small-scale multi-family. R4, R5, and R6 districts permits multi-family developments

* **Office residence districts:** The office residence districts are established to provide an environment of mixed residential, office, institutional, and where

<!-- page 267 -->
# Implementation

appropriate, small scale retail sales and service uses designed to serve the immediate surroundings. These office residence districts may serve as small to medium scale mixed use areas within neighborhoods, as higher density transitions between downtown and residential neighborhoods, or as freestanding institutions and employment centers throughout the city.

Zoning districts OR1, OR2, and OR3 are mixed use districts, which allows a range from low-scale commercial to major institutional uses.

*   **Commercial districts:** The commercial districts are established to provide a range of goods and services for city residents, to promote employment opportunities and the adaptive reuse of existing commercial buildings, and to maintain and improve compatibility with surrounding areas. In addition to commercial uses, residential uses, institutional and public uses, parking facilities, limited production and processing and public services and utilities are allowed.

    Zoning districts C1, C2, C3A, C3S, an C4 are mixed use districts. They allow a range of commercial uses from neighborhood to large scale, and also accommodate residential uses.

*   **Downtown districts:** The downtown districts are established to provide a range of retail, entertainment, office, employment, residential, institutional and governmental activities of citywide and regional significance. The regulations recognize the unique qualities of downtown as the business and cultural center of the region, as a community of high-density residential choices, and as a place where the combined environment attracts businesses, workers, shoppers, visitors, tourists, and residents.

    Zoning districts B4, B4S, B4C, and B4N which are used just in Downtown Minneapolis. They are mixed use districts, which allow much higher densities and heights than allowed elsewhere in the city.

*   **Industrial districts:** The industrial districts are established to provide locations for industrial land uses engaged in production, processing, assembly, manufacturing, packaging, wholesaling, warehousing or distribution of goods and materials. Regulations for the industrial districts are established to promote industrial development and to maintain and improve compatibility with surrounding areas. In addition to industrial uses, limited commercial uses, parking facilities, institutional and public uses and public services and utilities are allowed.

    Industrial zoning districts are I1, I2, and I3. While some commercial uses are allowed, residential uses generally are not (without an overlay district).

*   **Overlay districts:** Overlay districts are a series of districts that provide more specific guidance in designated areas throughout the city. Parcels within these districts are subject to the provisions in the primary zoning district and the overlay district.

    Overlay zoning districts include Pedestrian Oriented Overlay District, Linden Hills Overlay District, Industrial Living Overlay District, Transitional Parking Overlay District, Shoreland Overlay District, Floodplain Overlay District, Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay District, Downtown Parking Overlay District, Downtown Housing Overlay District, Downtown Height Overlay District, Nicollet Mall Overlay District, Harmon Area Overlay District, Airport Overlay District, University Area Overlay District, and Downtown Shelter Overlay District.

<!-- page 268 -->
# Implementation

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2: PRIMARY ZONING**

<!-- page 269 -->
# Implementation

<<FIGURE>>

FIGURE 3: OVERLAY ZONING

<!-- page 270 -->
# Implementation

### Land Subdivision Ordinance
Chapter 598 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances establishes land subdivision regulations for the City of Minneapolis, which are designed to facilitate and implement the subdivision and re-subdivision of land, and implement the policies of the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. At this time, no major changes to the land subdivision ordinances are needed to ensure the ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

### Heritage Preservation Ordinance
Heritage Preservation Regulations are established within Chapter 599 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, as authorized by state law M.S. 138.71 through 138.75, Minnesota Historic District Act of 1971 and M.S. 471.193, Municipal Heritage Preservation. The Heritage Preservation Ordinance establishes the Heritage Preservation Commission to have the authority to survey historic resources, designate historic resources, and review alterations to designated properties. One of the purposes of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance is to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan.

In addition to the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, preservation policies are implemented through historic surveys and context studies, historic design guidelines, and the participation of preservation staff in the development review process. Historic surveys and context studies identify and evaluate properties and resources that should be designated historic. As authorized in the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, Heritage Preservation Design Guidelines are used in the review of alterations to designate properties, new construction in historic districts, and signage. CPED staff work with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for federal and state review, including the Section 106 process and environmental reviews.

### Fiscal Tools
The City of Minneapolis uses a full range of available fiscal tools to support the City and comprehensive plan goals. These include property tax, special assessments, tax increment financing (TIF), fees and charges, bonding, and state and federal aid. The City’s annual budget document provides a comprehensive look at how these fiscal tools are being used and for what purpose.

More information on fiscal tools related to housing can be found in the Housing Implementation Program section.

### Water Treatment and Distribution
Chapter 509 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances contains regulations governing the city’s water treatment and distribution system. These services are provided by Public Works Water Treatment & Distribution Services (WTDS) which is responsible for the supply, treatment and distribution of water in the city.

More information about the City’s Water Resource Management Plan can be found in the Appendix.

### Surface Water and Sewers
Chapter 52 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances regulates erosion and sediment control for land disturbing activities. Chapter 54 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances regulates stormwater management for development and redevelopment activities. Chapter 510 governs the operation of the city’s stormwater utility. Chapter 511 regulates sewers and sewage disposal. These regulations are implemented and enforced through the City’s Public Works Department, in cooperation with other city, county, regional, and state partners.

One of the primary concerns related to city and regional water resources is negative impacts from urban stormwater runoff. The City of Minneapolis enforces ordinances designed to minimize negative stormwater rate, volume, and pollutant impacts:

* Requiring erosion control for new developments, housing projects, and other land disturbing activities to reduce the amount of soil and contaminants leaving construction site

<!-- page 271 -->
# Implementation

* Requiring long-term stormwater management for new developments to manage stormwater on-site and minimize adverse effects of stormwater volume, rate, and contaminants on water resources
* Controlling the application of pesticides by licensing applicators and restricting the sale and use of fertilizers containing phosphorus
* Controlling hazardous spills and enforcing regulations that prohibit illegal dumping and improper disposal into the storm drain system
* Preventing violations of non-stormwater discharges (industrial by-products that are clean or treated prior to discharge) by reviewing permit applications and renewals, and investigating complaints against existing permits
* Requiring removal of roof rainleader and other clearwater connections from the sanitary sewer system to eliminate Combined Sewer Overflows.

More information about the City’s Water Resource Management Plan can be found in the Appendix.

### Critical Area Plan
The purpose of the Critical Area Plan is to implement Minnesota Rules Chapter 6106, and ensure that the City’s land use and regulatory framework protects the natural resources in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA). The MRCCA contains many significant natural and cultural resources, including: scenic views, water, navigational capabilities, geology and soils, vegetation, minerals, flora and fauna, cultural and historic resources, and land and water based recreational resources.

Local units of government are required to adopt critical area plans and regulations that comply with state rules, and shall permit development in the corridor only in accordance with those adopted plans and regulations.

The purposes of the state’s Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area designation are to:

* protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional resource for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens for the state, region, and nation;
* prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this state, regional, and national resource;
* preserve and enhance the corridor’s natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historic values for the public use;
* protect and preserve the river as an essential element in the national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and recreational systems; and
* protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the corridor.

The City of Minneapolis’ Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan can be found in the Appendix.

## CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
### Overview of Process
The City has a five-year capital improvement program (CIP). Annually, City departments and independent boards and commissions prepare new and/or modify existing capital improvement proposals. The Finance Department, CPED Long Range Planning Division, and the Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee (CLIC) review the capital improvement proposals.

The Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee is a citizen advisory committee to the Mayor and City Council. The committee is authorized to have 33 appointed members, composed of two members per Council Ward and seven at-large members appointed by the Mayor. The committee elects a Chair and Vice Chair and divides into two programmatic task forces with approximately an equal number of members in each. Each task force elects a Chair and Vice Chair. Collectively, these six elected members form the Executive Committee and represent CLIC in meetings with the Mayor and City Council.

<!-- page 272 -->
# Implementation

The two task forces are commonly referred to as “Transportation” and “Human Development”. The task forces receive and review all Capital Budget Requests (CBRs) for their program areas as submitted by the various City departments and independent boards and commissions. During two all-day meetings, employees who prepared the CBRs formally present their needs and offer explanations for their requests. Task force members then rate all proposals using a rating system with several specific criteria and create a numerical rating for each project. Highest rated priorities are then balanced against available resources by year to arrive at a cohesive five-year capital improvement program recommendation to the Mayor.

The Mayor takes the CLIC recommendations into consideration when preparing the proposed budget that is submitted to the City Council. Finally, the City Council modifies and adopts its capital improvement program.

### Areas Funded by CIP
Funding through the City’s CIP supports City policies as established in the comprehensive plan, including the statutory requirements for funding transportation, wastewater, water supply, and parks and open space facilities. Included in the 2018-2022 CIP budget are funds for:

* Municipal Building Commission (City facilities)
* Park Board (parks and open space)
* Public grounds and facilities
* Public Works, including:
    * Street paving
    * Sidewalks
    * Bridges
    * Traffic control and street lighting
    * Bike and pedestrian projects
    * Sanitary sewer
    * Storm Sewers
    * Water Infrastructure
* Miscellaneous other projects, including:
    * Public Art

A summary of proposed capital projects is included in figure 4. A full version of the 2019-2023 CIP can be found in the Appendix.

More information on annual budgets can be found on the City Finance Department’s website.

<!-- page 273 -->
# Implementation

**Figure 4: Table of City of Minneapolis 2019-2023 Capital Improvements Program: Department Requested Budget**

| | | | Budget in Thousands | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| | | | **2019** | **2020** | **2021** | **2022** | **2023** | **Total** |
| MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMMISSION | | MBC01 Life Safety Improvements | 0 | 240 | 184 | 207 | 148 | **779** |
| | | MBC02 Mechanical Systems Upgrade | 0 | 0 | 649 | 1,036 | 1,196 | **2,881** |
| | | MBC10 Exterior Improvements | 5,626 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **5,626** |
| | | MBC11 Elevator Upgrades and Modernization | 4,992 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **4,992** |
| | | MBC12 Safety Improvements - Non-Stagework Areas | 3,208 | 4,267 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **7,476** |
| Total for MUNICIPAL BUILDING COMMISSION | | | **13,827** | **4,508** | **833** | **1,243** | **1,344** | **21,754** |
| PARK BOARD | | PRK02 Playground and Site Improvements Program | 2,160 | 2,046 | 840 | 1,041 | 1,065 | **7,152** |
| | | PRK03 Shelter - Pool - Site Improvements Program | 0 | 0 | 804 | 0 | 0 | **804** |
| | | PRK04 Athletic Fields -Site Improvements Program | 255 | 0 | 236 | 0 | 0 | **491** |
| | | PRK33 Bryn Mawr Meadows Field Improvements | 0 | 0 | 3,080 | 365 | 0 | **3,445** |
| | | PRK34 Currie Park Implementation | 2,212 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **2,212** |
| | | PRK35 Keewaydin Park Implementation | 541 | 626 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **1,168** |
| | | PRK36 North Commons Park Implementation | 368 | 1,000 | 800 | 0 | 0 | **2,168** |
| | | PRK37 Powderhorn Park Implementation | 0 | 0 | 285 | 815 | 0 | **1,100** |
| | | PRK38 Sibley Field Park Implementation | 518 | 503 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **1,021** |
| | | PRK39 Whittier Park Implementation | 45 | 1,062 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **1,107** |
| | | PRKCP Neighborhood Parks Capital Infrastructure | 1,894 | 2,604 | 2,246 | 6,589 | 7,400 | **20,733** |
| | | PRKDT Diseased Tree Removal | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | **1,500** |
| | | PRKRP Neighborhood Parks Rehabilitation Program | 4,050 | 4,195 | 4,390 | 3,870 | 3,860 | **20,364** |
| Total for PARK BOARD | | | **12,343** | **12,336** | **12,980** | **12,980** | **12,625** | **63,265** |
| PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | STREET PAVING | PV001 Parkway Paving Program | 750 | 750 | 750 | 750 | 750 | **3,750** |
| | | PV006 Alley Renovation Program | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | **1,250** |
| | | PV054 8th St S (Hennepin Ave to Chicago Ave) | 17,145 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **17,145** |
| | | PV056 Asphalt Pavement Resurfacing Program | 7,015 | 7,015 | 7,015 | 7,015 | 7,015 | **35,075** |
| | | PV059 Major Pavement Maintenance Program | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | **1,250** |
| | | PV063 Unpaved Alley Construction | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | **1,000** |
| | | PV074 CSAH & MnDOT Cooperative Projects | 5,420 | 2,800 | 700 | 3,800 | 5,455 | **18,175** |
| | | PV075 Development Infrastructure Program | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | **2,500** |
| | | PV092 Technology Dr (37th Ave NE to Marshall S NE) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,065 | 0 | **1,065** |
| | | PV095 4th St N & S (2nd Ave N to 4th Ave S) | 11,985 | 2,525 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **14,510** |
| | | PV104 ADA Ramp Replacement Program | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | **2,500** |
| | | PV108 Concrete Streets Rehabilitation Program | 4,325 | 4,750 | 5,185 | 5,130 | 5,350 | **24,740** |
| | | PV113 29th St W Phase 2 | 0 | 0 | 2,170 | 0 | 0 | **2,170** |
| | | PV114 U of M Protected Bikeways | 1,985 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **1,985** |
| | | PV116 North Loop Pedestrian Improvements | 3,820 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **3,820** |
| | | PV118 Hennepin Ave (Wash Ave N to 12th St S) | 0 | 22,200 | 910 | 0 | 0 | **23,110** |
| | | PV122 Dowling Ave (I-94 to 1st St N) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3,565 | 0 | **3,565** |
| | | PV123 Logan Park Industrial | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6,755 | 0 | **6,755** |
| | | PV125 33rd & 35th St E (M'haha & Dight Ave to Tracks) | 2,865 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **2,865** |
| | | PV126 Bryant Ave S (50th St E to Lake St E) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,400 | 17,355 | **18,755** |

<!-- page 274 -->
# Implementation

**Budget in Thousands**

| | | | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| **PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT** | **STREET PAVING** | PV127 37th Ave NE (Central Ave NE to Stinson Blvd) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10,475 | **10,475** |
| | | PV131 Res Neighborhood Reconst Projects | 2,205 | 4,195 | 5,860 | 6,000 | 6,000 | **24,260** |
| | | PV135 North Loop Paving | 9,475 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **9,475** |
| | | PV137 29th Ave NE (Central to Stinson) | 0 | 0 | 6,063 | 2,627 | 0 | **8,690** |
| | | PV138 26th St E (Minnehaha Ave to 29th Ave S) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4,550 | 0 | **4,550** |
| | | PV139 18th Ave NE (Johnson St NE to Stinson Blvd NE) | 1,097 | 3,908 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **5,005** |
| | | PV140 13th Ave NE (Sibley St NE to Monroe St NE) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7,740 | 0 | **7,740** |
| | | PV141 Grand Ave S (Lake St W to 48th St W) | 0 | 712 | 14,353 | 0 | 0 | **15,065** |
| | | PV142 Downtown East Paving | 0 | 0 | 3,175 | 0 | 0 | **3,175** |
| | | PV143 North Industrial | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5,670 | 0 | **5,670** |
| | | PV146 9th St SE (6th Ave SE to 9th Ave SE) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,220 | 0 | **2,220** |
| | | PV147 Girard Ave S (Lake St to Lagoon Ave) | 0 | 1,295 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **1,295** |
| | | PV150 1st Ave N (10th St N to Wash Ave) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12,425 | **12,425** |
| | | PV152 Plymouth Ave (Washburn Ave N to Penn Ave N) | 0 | 0 | 4,625 | 835 | 0 | **5,460** |
| | | PV154 Franklin Ave W (Henn Ave S to Lyndale Ave S) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,125 | 0 | **2,125** |
| | | PV156 Johnson St NE (18th Ave NE to Lowry Ave NE) | 0 | 0 | 4,599 | 0 | 0 | **4,599** |
| | | PV158 Hennepin Ave (Lake St W to Douglas Ave) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18,745 | **18,745** |
| | | PV99R Reimbursable Paving Projects | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,500 | **17,500** |
| Total for STREET PAVING | | | **73,287** | **55,350** | **60,605** | **66,447** | **88,770** | **344,459** |
| | **SIDEWALKS** | SWK01 Defective Hazardous Sidewalks | 4,250 | 4,460 | 4,670 | 4,880 | 5,090 | **23,350** |
| | | SWK02 Sidewalk Gaps | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 | **750** |
| Total for SIDEWALKS | | | **4,400** | **4,610** | **4,820** | **5,030** | **5,240** | **24,100** |
| | **BRIDGES** | BR101 Major Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation | 600 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | **2,200** |
| | | BR106 1st Ave S over HCRRA | 0 | 4,790 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **4,790** |
| | | BR117 1st St N Bridge over Bassetts Creek | 0 | 1,380 | 0 | 0 | 0 | **1,380** |
| | | BR127 Nicollet Ave over Minnehaha Creek | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24,050 | 0 | **24,050** |
| | | BR133 Cedar Lake Road Bridges over Bassett Cr & RR | 0 | 0 | 1,125 | 0 | 0 | **1,125** |
| | | BR134 Bridge 9 Program | 2,080 | 2,470 | 785 | 1,945 | 1,315 | **8,595** |
| Total for BRIDGES | | | **2,680** | **9,040** | **2,310** | **26,395** | **1,715** | **42,140** |
| | **TRAFFIC CONTROL & STREET LIGHTING** | TR008 Parkway Street Light Replacement | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | **1,750** |
| | | TR010 Traffic Management Systems | 1,055 | 875 | 1,150 | 1,250 | 1,850 | **6,180** |
| | | TR011 City Street Light Renovation | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,500 | 1,500 | **6,000** |
| | | TR021 Traffic Signals | 1,950 | 1,800 | 2,000 | 2,500 | 2,500 | **10,750** |
| | | TR022 Traffic Safety Improvements | 1,000 | 1,380 | 2,600 | 1,750 | 1,750 | **8,480** |
| | | TR024 Pedestrian Street Lighting Corridors | 500 | 500 | 500 | 600 | 1,000 | **3,100** |
| | | TR025 Sign Replacement Program | 895 | 895 | 895 | 895 | 895 | **4,475** |
| | | TR99R Reimbursable Transportation Projects | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 | **3,000** |
| Total for TRAFFIC CONTROL & STREET LIGHTING | | | **7,350** | **7,400** | **9,095** | **9,445** | **10,445** | **43,735** |
| | **BIKE - PED PROJECTS** | BIK28 Protected Bikeways Program | 1,140 | 1,940 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | **6,080** |

<!-- page 275 -->
# Implementation

| | | | Budget in Thousands | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| | | | **2019** | **2020** | **2021** | **2022** | **2023** | **Total** |
| PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | BIKE - PED PROJECTS | BP001 Safe Routes to School Program | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 2,000 |
| | | BP003 Midtown Greenway Trail Mill & Overlay | 0 | 0 | 1,100 | 0 | 0 | 1,100 |
| | | BP004 Pedestrian Safety Program | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 3,000 |
| | | BP005 Queen Ave N Bike Boulevard | 0 | 2,125 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,125 |
| | | BP006 18th Ave NE Trail Gap (Marshall to California) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 605 | 0 | 605 |
| | Total for BIKE - PED PROJECTS | | 2,140 | 5,065 | 3,100 | 2,605 | 2,000 | 14,910 |
| | SANITARY SEWERS | SA001 Sanitary Tunnel & Sewer Rehab Program | 14,000 | 8,000 | 8,000 | 8,000 | 8,000 | 46,000 |
| | | SA036 Infiltration & Inflow Removal Program | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,500 | 3,500 | 17,500 |
| | | SA99R Reimbursable Sanitary Sewer Projects | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 5,000 |
| | Total for SANITARY SEWERS | | 18,500 | 12,500 | 12,500 | 12,500 | 12,500 | 68,500 |
| | STORM SEWERS | SW004 Implementation of US EPA Storm Water Regs | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 1,250 |
| | | SW005 Combined Sewer Overflow Improvements | 1,500 | 1,500 | 1,500 | 1,500 | 1,500 | 7,500 |
| | | SW011 Storm Drains and Tunnels Rehab Program | 6,000 | 6,000 | 6,000 | 6,000 | 6,000 | 30,000 |
| | | SW032 I-35W Storm Tunnel | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,000 | 1,000 |
| | | SW039 Flood Mitigation - Stormwater Alternatives | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | 25,000 |
| | | SW040 Central City Parallel Storm Tunnel | 0 | 11,000 | 11,000 | 13,000 | 0 | 35,000 |
| | | SW99R Reimbursable Sewer & Storm Drain Projects | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 10,000 |
| | Total for STORM SEWERS | | 14,750 | 25,750 | 25,750 | 27,750 | 15,750 | 109,750 |
| | WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | WTR12 Water Distribution Improvements | 9,450 | 9,550 | 9,650 | 9,750 | 9,000 | 47,400 |
| | | WTR18 Water Distribution Facility | 0 | 15,285 | 6,265 | 0 | 0 | 21,550 |
| | | WTR23 Treatment Infrastructure Improvements | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,500 | 5,500 | 26,000 |
| | | WTR24 Fridley Filter Plant Rehabilitation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | | WTR27 Advanced Metering Infrastructure | 4,690 | 1,770 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6,460 |
| | | WTR28 Ultrafiltration Module Replacement | 750 | 750 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,500 |
| | | WTR29 Columbia Heights Campus Upgrades | 450 | 3,750 | 4,800 | 4,000 | 1,360 | 14,360 |
| | | WTR30 10th Avenue Bridge Water Main | 10,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10,000 |
| | | WTR31 Electrical Service Rehabilitation | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 3,000 | 11,000 |
| | | WTR9R Reimbursable Water Main Projects | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 10,000 |
| | Total for WATER INFRASTRUCTURE | | 34,340 | 40,105 | 29,715 | 23,250 | 20,860 | 148,270 |
| Total for PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | | | 157,447 | 159,820 | 147,895 | 173,422 | 157,280 | 795,864 |
| PUBLIC GROUNDS & FACILITIES | | FIR11 Fire Station No. 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,144 | 0 | 2,144 |
| | | FIR12 Fire Station No. 1 Renovation and Expansion | 5,000 | 2,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7,000 |
| | | FIR13 Fire Station No. 4 Apparatus Bay Addition | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,000 |
| | | PSD15 Traffic Maintenance Facility Improvement | 0 | 200 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 0 | 4,200 |
| | | PSD16 Farmers Market Improvements | 0 | 1,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 0 | 5,000 |
| | | PSD18 Regulatory Services Facility | 0 | 1,000 | 3,750 | 0 | 0 | 4,750 |
| | | PSD19 Impound Lot Facility | 1,000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,000 |
| | | PSD20 City Hall & New Public Service Center | 104,000 | 93,000 | 13,000 | 0 | 0 | 210,000 |
| | | RAD01 Public Safety Radio System Replacement | 2,700 | 2,700 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5,400 |

<!-- page 276 -->
# Implementation

| | | Budget in Thousands | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| | | **2019** | **2020** | **2021** | **2022** | **2023** | **Total** |
| Total for PUBLIC GROUNDS & FACILITIES | | **113,700** | **99,900** | **20,750** | **6,144** | **0** | **240,494** |
| **MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS** | **ART01 Art in Public Places** | 741 | 714 | 674 | 766 | 813 | **3,708** |
| Total for MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS | | **741** | **714** | **674** | **766** | **813** | **3,708** |
| | | | | | | | |
| **Grand Totals** | | **298,058** | **277,278** | **183,132** | **194,555** | **172,062** | **1,125,085** |

## HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The comprehensive plan is required to have a housing implementation program that identifies official controls, programs and fiscal tools the City will use to implement its housing goals and policies. The following section includes information on programs and tools the City could use to meet its existing and projected housing needs, identifies the tools that will address the three levels of affordability, and the circumstances in which the tools would be utilized. The Metropolitan Council has recognized the regional need for the increased availability of affordable housing. In order to ensure an equitable distribution of affordable housing throughout the region and to meet a region-wide goal of 37,900 newly constructed affordable housing units, the Council set targets for each municipality to achieve between 2021 and 2030 as identified in the region’s 2040 Housing Policy Plan. The City of Minneapolis’ share of this overall goal is 3,499 new affordable housing units.

The allocation of these goals by jurisdiction was determined by two factors:

• Ratio of low-wage jobs to low-wage workers
• Ratio of low-wage jobs to low-wage workers

### Affordable Housing Programs and Fiscal Devices
Housing policy implementation at the City of Minneapolis is primarily managed through Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) – Housing Policy & Development Division. The Housing Policy & Development Division administers a number of programs for the development and preservation of affordable and mixed-income rental and ownership housing. The City’s funds and programs are targeted to meet City housing priorities, which includes preserving affordable housing in the city. The City will continue to partner with public agencies, and the private-sector to meet the City’s affordable housing need allocations and comprehensive plan goals.

Below is description of public programs and fiscal devices that could be used by the City to meet the existing and projected housing needs as identified in the comprehensive plan:

More information about housing fiscal tools and resources can be found on the City’s CPED Housing Policy and Development Division website.

<!-- page 277 -->
# Implementation

**Figure 5: Table of City programs and fiscal devices for housing policy implementation**

| City Resources | Summary |
| :--- | :--- |
| Multifamily Housing: 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits | ~$1.2 million/year via sub-allocator formula based on population. Available on an annual competitive basis to provide private equity financing for affordable and mixed income rental projects, both new construction and preservation. Awarded based on adherence to published Qualified Allocation Plan. LIHTCs typically provide a 70% subsidy for projects. |
| Multifamily Housing: Affordable Housing Trust Fund | ~$10 million per year via City budget. Available on an annual competitive basis (pipeline for any unallocated funds) to provide gap financing for affordable and mixed income rental projects, both new construction and preservation. Funding is typically provided as a low/no interest deferred loan. $25k/affordable unit maximum subsidy. |
| Multifamily Housing: Housing Revenue Bonds / 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits | ~$50 million/year via entitlement issuer formula based on population. Available on a pipeline basis (project must meet threshold scoring) to provide private capital for financing affordable and mixed income rental projects (currently), both new construction and preservation. HRBs are paired with an allocation of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, which typically provide a 30% subsidy for projects. |
| Multifamily Housing: Pass Through Grants | CPED staff manages a large portfolio of grant funds on behalf of our funding partners at DEED, Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council. These grant funds are associated with specific programs and range in utilization from environmental investigation and clean up to grants directly associated with new construction of affordable and mixed income housing. |
| Multifamily Housing: Tax Increment Financing | Provides for use of Tax Increment Financing to support affordable housing development. |
| NOAH Preservation: 4D Program | 4d status offers a lower property tax classification to apartment owners who have at least 20 percent of their units affordable at 60 percent of area median income, as evidenced by a recorded declaration of land use restrictions. |
| NOAH Preservation: Small and Medium Multifamily Program & NOAH Preservation Fund | Strategies to assist with acquisition and preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing. |

<!-- page 278 -->
# Implementation

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Single-family Housing: Minneapolis Homes Development Assistance | The program is designed to create new construction housing opportunities on City-owned vacant lots, includes incentives for direct development by a homebuyer and creation of Long-term affordable housing. |
| Single-family Housing: Minneapolis Homes: Build/Rehab | The program is designed to redevelop vacant buildings and vacant lots suitable for 1-4 unit residential development. |
| Single-family Housing: Home Ownership Works | The program supports the development of owner-occupied housing that is sold to homebuyers whose income is at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). |
| Single-family Housing: Homebuyer Assistance Program | There are a variety of programs designed to assist Minneapolis homebuyers with down payment and closing costs toward the purchase of their new home. |
| Single-family Housing: Home Improvement Programs | The program supports the rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing that is owned by homeowners whose income is at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). |
| Inclusionary Housing Policy | Affordable housing is required for rental and ownership housing for residential new development projects that receive city funding or are located on city-owned land. There is a proposal to expand the policy to cover more development in 2019. |

### Unified Housing Policy
The Unified Housing Policy states the City’s general policy principles with the intent to clarify and streamline City’s housing policies and practices. It was first adopted by City Council in 2004. In 2017, the City Council adopted RCA-2017-01247, an updated Unified Housing Policy, to align with City priorities, and codify its existing practices around City-assisted projects. The unified policy addresses topics such as affordable housing, single room occupancy (SROs) units, senior housing, and housing needs for people experiencing homelessness. This policy has been adopted to be interpreted as consistent with the comprehensive plan, and any future updates to this policy will be amended to be consistent with comprehensive plan policies.

### Official Controls
The purpose of this section is to describe the official controls to implement the housing policies of the comprehensive plan. This includes relevant official controls and processes for the construction and renovation of housing projects, and enforcement of the housing maintenance code. This section should serve only as an overview of the City of Minneapolis’ regulatory frameworks, and applicants seeking regulatory guidance on construction and renovation projects should contact appropriate City staff.

The City’s zoning and land subdivision ordinances are the primary tools the City uses to implement comprehensive plan policies. The zoning ordinance will require significant changes to bring it into consistency with the comprehensive

<!-- page 279 -->
# Implementation

plan. Existing zoning and land subdivision ordinances will be brought into consistency after adoption of the plan.

To ensure the safety, health, and livability of the community, the City requires permits and licenses for development, construction, and renovation activities. The City enforces national and international codes adopted by the State of Minnesota. These include the State Building Code and State Plumbing Code. Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) – Development Services is the department primarily responsible for these activities, including administering the zoning ordinance, review of site plans, granting construction and renovation permits, and enforcing building and construction codes.

After the construction and occupancy of buildings, additional enforcement will be necessary to maintain healthy homes in the community. Housing regulations are addressed in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances. Housing inspections and enforcement of the housing maintenance code is the responsibility of the Department of Regulatory Services, in partnership with the Health Department which provides support and resources to address health hazards related to housing. Regulations and housing programs related to maintenance of healthy homes will continue to be developed to implement the comprehensive plan policies.

### CONSISTENCY BETWEEN PLAN AND LOCAL CONTROLS

The 1995 amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act require that official local controls be consistent with the community’s comprehensive plan. Communities may not adopt any new official controls that conflict with the comprehensive plan, or permit activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans. Local controls will be brought into conformance with the comprehensive plan as the City’s zoning and land subdivision ordinances and maps are updated in accordance with the document.

### Other Approaches to Implementation

While the tools listed above are important, there are many other approaches to implementation of policy in the city. These are described below:

**City Council strategic planning —** The City Council periodically reviews City progress and sets goals for upcoming years regarding top priorities. While the goals are more narrowly focused than the scope of the comprehensive plan and reflect priorities for near-term implementation, they are consistent with the overall comprehensive plan policy direction, and were developed utilizing the community engagement and policy statements included in the comprehensive plan.

In 2018, the City embarked on a new process of establishing strategic priorities coupled with racial equity planning known as the Strategic and Racial Equity Action Plan (S-REAP). However, it should be noted that these are the goals of the current administration, and they may change in future years. The strategic priorities will result in department planning for near-term implementation. In addition to this the City will develop an enterprise-wide strategy of measuring progress on achieving comprehensive plan goals in conjunction with the outcomes of the City Council strategic planning.

This planning process will include an engagement process led by the City Coordinator’s Office to develop goals and metrics for the strategic priorities, followed by the development of tactical strategies for implementation by City departments in early 2019. More information about department tactical strategies can be found in the department planning section.

**Annual budget —** The City’s annual budget process integrates information from citywide priority setting, capital improvements program, annual infrastructure operation and maintenance costs, and departmental review processes to establish annual resource allocations.

<!-- page 280 -->
# Implementation

Budgetary priorities are reviewed for consistency with comprehensive plan policy.

**Department planning —** City departments are responsible for producing department business plans that provide an overview of their strategies that will guide their work to meet the City Council’s strategic priorities. These plans are linked to funding in the City’s budgetary process, which lead to allocation of resources and funding for programs to implement City priorities. These plans are produced after the adoption of the City Council’s strategic priorities, which typically occurs every four years. Department plans are an opportunity to advance comprehensive plan policies.

An additional component to the department plans is tracking department performance. Measures that capture department progress toward meeting City priorities will be developed upon the completion of the City’s strategic and racial equity action planning process. Department performance by budget program area will continue to be tracked by the City Coordinator’s Office through Results Minneapolis.

**Interdepartmental and Enterprise-wide coordination —** The comprehensive plan provides topical and goal-oriented strategies to ensure that complex policy and programmatic changes are coordinated interdepartmentally and throughout the Enterprise. The City will continue to coordinate among departments for the development of programs, and guide decisionmakers in order to implement comprehensive plan policies.

**Topical and small area plans —** The comprehensive plan was informed by the guidance of adopted small area plans, and was updated where necessary to be consistent with the application of the comprehensive plan goals and policies citywide. Below is an overview of how aspects of small area plans have been incorporated:

* *Future land use and built form:* The comprehensive plan updates this guidance for the entire city in service to the comprehensive plan goals. This new guidance is informed by the guidance of the small area plans, and updated where necessary to be consistent with the application of comprehensive plan goals and policies citywide. The comprehensive plan will be used to guide future land use and built form guidance in areas covered by past small area plans.

* *Urban design policies:* The comprehensive plan includes urban design policies intended to shape the design of new buildings. This guidance is informed by the design guidance of small area plans, and applies to all new development in the city. The comprehensive plan will be used to guide urban design in areas covered by past small area plans.

* *Capital improvements:* Capital improvement projects that are identified in small area plans and that are yet to be implemented will be evaluated as part of the 2019 update to Access Minneapolis, the City’s Transportation Action Plan.

* *Community development strategies:* The comprehensive plan updates Housing and Economic Competitiveness policies aimed at achieving the plan’s goals and policies. These are informed by the body of work in the last decade of small area plans. Stakeholders are encouraged to continue with community development strategies identified in small area plans that are yet to be completed and contribute to implementation of the comprehensive plan goals and policies.

More information about small area plans and details on how each plan is incorporated into the comprehensive plan can be found in the Appendix.

Adopted plans that were used to inform the comprehensive plan planning process include:

* Minneapolis Climate Action Plan (2013) – The intent of the plan is to provide a roadmap for the City of Minneapolis with a comprehensive set of strategies that the City can undertake to meet its emissions reduction goals. The plan incorporates strategies to reduce carbon emissions.

<!-- page 281 -->
# Implementation

* Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan —The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) is a land corridor along the Mississippi River in the 7-county metro area where there are special land use regulations that guide development activity. Local governments in the corridor, including Minneapolis, must complete a MRCCA plan that complies with state rules (MR 6106.0010 – 6106.0180). The purpose of this document is to fulfill that requirement, and ensure that the City’s land use and regulatory framework protects the MRCCA’s resources.

The City of Minneapolis’ Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan can be found in the Appendix.

Upcoming planning processes in other departments include:

* Transportation Action Plan - In 2018, the City of Minneapolis Public Works Department launched its planning process to update the City’s ten-year Transportation Action Plan. The purpose of the Transportation Action Plan is to identify specific actions to implement the transportation goals and policies articulated in the comprehensive plan.

* Minneapolis Local Surface Water Management Plan - The City’s Public Works Department developed the local water plan as required by state statues. The purpose of this plan is to provide a comprehensive plan for water management to protect water resources in the city. This plan details water resource goals, implementation, operations and maintenance practices, in accordance with applicable policies and regulations.

**City boards and commissions —** The City of Minneapolis has more than 50 commissions and advisory boards. These boards and commissions, composed of citizen volunteers, who are appointed by an elected official or an open appointment process, advise the city on current issues and assist the city in policy development and administration of services. These boards and commissions include:

* City Planning Commission - The City of Minneapolis Planning Commission is charged with long-range planning for the city and is responsible for advising the City Council on matters of development, zoning, and capital improvements. It is a citizen’s committee that works with Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) on the development of plans and the review of development applications.

* Heritage Preservation Commission - The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is dedicated to the preservation and celebration of our heritage. The HPC serves as a citizen advisory body to the Minneapolis City Council, preserving historically and architecturally significant buildings, districts and sites while allowing modifications for contemporary use.

* Zoning Board of Adjustment - The Zoning Board of Adjustment hears matters of zoning variances, zoning appeals, and the establishment of legal nonconforming rights. It is a citizen’s committee that works with the staff of the CPED Development Services.

* Minneapolis Advisory Committee on Housing - Advise the Mayor, City Council, and City departments on a wide range of issues related to housing, including but not limited to: city housing policy, homelessness and housing instability, fair housing development, rental licensing, accessibility, maintenance and health and sustainability. The committee is intended to reflect the racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic and gender diversity of Minneapolis residents most affected by the current housing environment, which has low vacancy rates, a shortage of available affordable rentals, and a large disparity in homeownership rates between white households and households of color.

* Special service districts - Special service districts are defined areas within the city where special services are rendered. State law mandates the creation of advisory boards through city ordinance for each special service district to advise the city on services within the district.

<!-- page 282 -->
# Implementation

*   Watershed management organizations - Watershed districts are local, special-purpose units of government that work to solve and prevent water-related problems. The boundaries of each district follow those of a natural watershed and consist of land in which all water flows to one outlet.

The City works closely with each of these, some of which have their own budgetary and planning processes, to ensure that important citywide policies are being implemented. For an exhaustive list of commissions and advisory boards, visit the Minneapolis Boards, Commissions, and Advisory Committees website.

**Intergovernmental coordination —** In order to implement the comprehensive plan, the City must coordinate with various governmental agencies that have jurisdiction outside the control of the City of Minneapolis. It is crucial understand the priorities of each agency as each have unique roles and responsibilities such as landownership, maintenance and operations of public infrastructure, and have governing bodies responsible for making decisions around budgets and programming. Active relationship building and coordination with various jurisdictions is important to implementing comprehensive plan policies.

In Minneapolis, the public schools are under the jurisdiction of Minneapolis Public Schools, and the parkland is owned and maintained by the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board. Both governing agencies commonly conduct their own planning process and policies to guide their decision-making and investments. Additionally, certain streets and highways are under the jurisdiction of and maintained by different governing bodies such as Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).

Another unique relationship the City has is with the University of Minnesota. They have their own governing body and are responsible for many of their public facilities and infrastructure, even though they are within the city limits. The University conducts their own planning efforts that falls under their own jurisdiction which include, but are not limited to land use, transportation, and their own critical area plan.

To ensure consistency between planning efforts, the City will continue to convene meetings with neighboring jurisdictions and coordinate efforts that align with City goals.

**Partnering with the private sector —** The City will continue to partner with both for-profit and nonprofit organizations as a strategy to addressing complex issues. The City can leverage limited resources and tap expertise on specific topics. The City will continue to identify and strengthen these partnerships to further shared goals for the public good.

**Intergovernmental relations —** Part of implementing a plan is an assessment of any regulatory barriers or fiscal constraints that would limit the ability to achieve an objective. The City’s legislative agenda addresses priority issues at the regional, state, and federal levels. The agenda, which is reviewed annually and implemented continually, is coordinated through the City’s Intergovernmental Relations Department. There is regular communication between federal, state, and local levels regarding issues that have an impact on the city.

### IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
One important consideration when proceeding with implementation of a plan is identifying potential obstacles which the City must address in order to implement the plan. These challenges have been identified across the various City departments, and are summarized below, along with a brief description of how the comprehensive plan addresses these issues:

*   **Existing and Deepening Disparities —** According to a report issued by the Economic Policy Institute in 2010, Minneapolis led the nation in having the widest unemployment disparity between African-American and white residents. These disparities

<!-- page 283 -->
# Implementation

also exist in nearly every other measurable social aspect, including of economic, housing, safety and health outcomes, between people of color and indigenous people compared with white people. In order to achieve measurable reduction and eventual elimination of racial disparities, the City will work with other governmental, philanthropic and private sector partners to examine programs and services through a process fully informed by racial equity goals, disaggregated data, and qualitative and quantitative analysis.

To achieve the goal of eliminate disparities, the City of Minneapolis will work to undo the legacy that remains from racially discriminatory housing policies by increasing access to opportunity through a greater diversity of housing types, especially in areas that lack housing options as a result of discriminatory housing policy. The City will invest in education, skills training, small business support and other support systems to help residents access opportunities to gain and retain well-paying employment that allows them to grow as individuals.

In 2017 Council adopted an ordinance establishing a division of race and equity. In doing so, Council called for the “development of a comprehensive [racial equity] plan to incorporate and embed racial equity principles and strategies into operations, programs, services, and policies of the City.” By creating the division, the City declared “its intent to purposefully integrate, on an enterprise wide basis, a racial equity framework that will advance racial equity in all the City does in order to ultimately achieve equity for all people. Such intent is an express manifestation of the City’s commitment to apply and embed racial equity principles throughout the City’s broad range of operations, programs, services and policies.”

* **Climate change —** Climate change is a defining challenge of this decade and even this century. The overwhelming scientific consensus holds that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are destabilizing the earth’s climate and that human activity is the primary driver of these emissions.

To achieve the goal of climate change resilience, the City of Minneapolis will strive to substantially increase the energy efficiency of buildings, improve the city’s multimodal transportation network, and invest in energy systems resilience.

### SMALL AREA PLANS
With the work of the planning process to update the comprehensive plan, the adopted small area plans were used to inform the comprehensive plan. This took into account land use and built form guidance in order to bring it into consistency with the comprehensive plan goals, as well as gathering urban design policies from topical and small area plans and applying it citywide for all new development.

Capital improvement projects that were identified in small area plans will be evaluated as part of the update of the City’s Transportation Action Plan which has kicked off as of Fall 2018.

With the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the intent and purpose of the plan is to provide clear and concise land use, built form, and policy guidance for growth and development over the next ten years. The comprehensive plan maps are intended to be the primary document that provides guidance on land use and built form. Changes or revisions to the land use and built form guidance will be made to the maps adopted in the comprehensive plan.

However, it should be noted that additional district-wide planning will be necessary in geographic areas where a coordinated development approach is required among different entities and agencies to implement the comprehensive plan goals and policies. In these cases, City staff will lead a coordinated planning effort to advance the plan goals, prioritizing these efforts in geographic areas

<!-- page 284 -->
# Implementation

that have experienced disinvestment.

### AMENDING THE PLAN
During the life of the comprehensive plan, it may become necessary to amend the document. There are various reasons to amend the comprehensive plan such as changes to land use guidance, text changes to a policy, or new information that makes it necessary to make changes to implement the comprehensive plan policies.

<!-- page 285 -->
# Planning Process

Historically, people of color and indigenous communities (POCI), renters, and people from low-income backgrounds have been underrepresented in civic processes. This can be attributed to many factors including lack of free time and commitments to work, education, and family. One of the main causes for lower representation of POCI in these processes is the structure in which traditional civic engagement has been conducted, and the disenfranchisement of communities that continue to create obstacles and barriers for people to engage.

Throughout the Minneapolis 2040 process civic engagement has been designed and conducted in a way to create equitable and innovative ways to engage populations that have been historically underrepresented in civic life. Such efforts includes dedicating time to building new relationships in order to create a more inclusive and equitable planning process to join communities that have already been at the table.

<!-- page 286 -->
# Civic Engagement

<<FIGURE>>

Residents drawing on maps at a Comprehensive Plan open house in December 2017 at Farview Park

### Introduction

Minneapolis 2040 is the city’s twenty-year Comprehensive Plan update. The Comprehensive Plan is an important citywide policy document that provides direction for Minneapolis’ built, economic, and natural environment into the future. The City of Minneapolis is required by state law to update the Comprehensive Plan every ten years according to regional planning requirements administered by the Metropolitan Council.

On April 1, 2016, the City Council directed the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) to update the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in service to the values of growth and vitality, equity and racial justice, health and resilience, livability and connectedness, economic competitiveness, and good government with a focus on guiding public and private investment in the built, natural, and economic environment.

### What was the timeline of the process?

The comprehensive plan process was organized into five phases that are tied to the Topical Research Teams goals and methods of civic engagement, including gathering public and community feedback on various ideas and proposals that come to the surface as the project unfolded. The process started from early 2016 and lasts through 2018. The five phases are:

* Phase 1: Launch
* Phase 2: Big Questions
* Phase 3: Policy Framework (Phase 3A and 3B)
* Phase 4: Policy Document
* Phase 5: Review

The civic engagement process was a dynamic process which required participants, City of Minneapolis staff, and elected officials to learn, interact and engage through various mediums. Beyond the extensive effort, which engaged with the plan’s identified key audiences in meaningful dialogue on the direction of the city, City staff also gathered input from the Steering Committee, the City Planning Commission, relevant Boards and Commissions, the City Council, and the Mayor.

### What is civic engagement and why is it important?

Civic engagement is a means for all people to bring their voices into the process and to share their own ideas, backgrounds, and experiences to plan for a future that

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 287 -->
benefits everyone. The people of Minneapolis assisted in the creation of Minneapolis 2040, and the final plan reflects that participation. As part of this process, the Civic Engagement Plan (which can be found online at minneapolis2040.com/planning-process) was created to recognize the complexity of engaging the Minneapolis community in a transparent and effective way to develop Minneapolis 2040. It contains goals that guided engagement, identified creative methods for engaging key audiences, established a timeline and phases for activation, and presented an outline of how the City has incorporated feedback from the public and key audiences into the City's formal decision-making structure for when the Mayor and City Council are asked to approve the plan.

### What are the engagement goals?
Civic engagement for Minneapolis 2040 featured opportunities for participants to learn and be informed, interact in the process, and provide meaningful feedback through large convenings, in-person interactions, technology, and creative tools. Each engagement method was evaluated based on engagement goals that were formulated from the Core Principles of Community Engagement, which were adopted by City Council in 2007. The City aimed to achieve these outcomes and objectives through the civic engagement process through:

**Meaningful and Relevant Dialogue:** The community feels that the dialogue has been meaningful and relevant to their interests and daily lives.

* Focus all materials, activities, and tools on specific topics.

* Use key audiences' time efficiently and effectively.

* Connect topics to the work of the internal Topical Research Teams process of developing and updating City policies.

* Clearly define the expectations, goals and outcomes of every activity, especially in terms of how they relate to key audiences.

<<FIGURE>>

* Tell the story of how creating a vision of Minneapolis for the year 2040 connects to various key audiences.

* Follow-up by connecting people to resources.

**Inclusive Representation:** The perspectives and participation of a broad range of community members are equitably represented in the plan.

* Create a variety of options for key audiences to engage in the process.

* Share information through ethnic and community media venues.

* Market events, materials, and tools to different age groups.

* Meet people where they already gather and attend existing meetings.

* Facilitate discussions and develop materials with cultural sensitivity and eliminating biases in mind.

* Provide clear and comprehensive summaries of public input and share them through engagement activities, materials, and other tools.

* Create opportunities for different key audiences to understand each other’s various perspectives.

* Share case studies of different demographic groups in the city.

<!-- page 288 -->
# Planning Process

**Access to Information and Opportunities:** The public has the information they need to participate in ways that are appropriate to their experiences and lifestyles.

* Provide translation of activities and materials in appropriate languages and for people who are visually and hearing impaired.
* Provide childcare and transportation when feasible.
* Ensure meetings, events, and tools are ADA and transit accessible.
* Test methods and tools to confirm they are understandable and accessible to people from a range of cultural backgrounds and with a range of abilities.
* Be concise and use plain language at events and in materials and tools.
* Make engagement more accessible through visual examples (diagrams, charts, photographs) and develop tools that are accessible to people with a variety of learning styles and on a variety of levels.
* Incorporate the City’s standard language block into all public documents and information.

**Contributions Have Impact:** The public feels their input has been thoughtfully considered and sees their contributions reflected in the plan.

* Have face-to-face interactions.
* Report back on what we heard.
* Report back on how public input has influenced decisions that shape policies.

**Empowering Experience:** Community leadership and capacity has been built through the process.

* Build relationships with and between various communities through follow-up interactions.
* Engage diverse key audiences in speaking at and facilitating meetings and activities.
* Encourage key audiences to tell the visioning process and Comprehensive Plan story.
* Engage key audiences in reporting back to their communities.

**Effectively-Used Resources:** Government resources are used wisely and effectively.

* Use objectives, methods, and tools that make the most effective use of government resources.
* Develop methods than can be used in future planning processes beyond Minneapolis 2040.

### Who has been engaged?
The civic engagement process was structured to be as inclusive as possible as City staff worked together with community members to shape the future. City staff identified key audiences that best meet the engagement goals and objectives of the Civic Engagement Plan (which can be found online at minneapolis2040.com/planning-process). These were intended to be broad audience groups that would help focus engagement efforts, but would be as far-reaching as possible. However, the list is not exhaustive, and may not represent all interested people. These key audiences include, but are not limited to:

* The general public
* Cultural organizations
* Recent immigrants
* Homeless population
* Accessibility population
* Residents
* Public agencies
* Business associations
* Property owners

<!-- page 289 -->
# Planning Process

• Youth and families
• Seniors
• Neighborhood organizations
• Developers and brokers
• Policy advocates
• Media outlets
• Social media users
• College students
• Institutions
• Small business owners
• Tourists and visitors

### Evaluating Approaches to Engagement - Informing, Interacting, and Feedback

One of the objectives throughout the engagement process was to have a variety of opportunities for engagement for all types of participants. This included opportunities to learn, interact with City staff and other participants, and provide input on key questions. Engagement methods were utilized based upon their ability to achieve at least one of these types of engagement:

<<FIGURE>>

**Informing:** Staff updates the community on the planning process and creates access to resources. Key audiences are informed on various topics early in the process to empower participants for more meaningful discussion and feedback for further engagement as policy topics are prioritized.

**Interacting:** Engagement that facilitates an exchange of ideas between the City and the community. Engagement methods that are designed as a forum for participants to interact with each other and allows for learning from different experiences and perspectives. These types of interactions are prioritized as it allows the opportunity for dialogue and relationship building.

**Feedback:** Community members share their thoughts and ideas with the City. Comments are collected through various engagement opportunities through written or drawn feedback at open houses, street festivals, and online interactions. All collected feedback are used as comments and are transcribed or documented.

### How did engagement occur?
During each comprehensive planning phase the community had the opportunity to be involved in engaging with City staff, and each other, during a period of focused activities and other related opportunities. Each round of engagement included:

**Community Workshops** – Community meetings and workshops were held during each phase of engagement, and were designed to be as inclusive as possible. This was done by hosting them in accessible locations next to public transit, offering food and refreshments, and having fun and family friendly activities with artist-designed engagement. This included activities and information that was accessible to different types of participants who wanted to engage for a couple minutes or dive deeper into a discussion. Interpreters were on hand at every meeting for limited-English speakers.

**Community Dialogues** - Community Dialogues are facilitated conversations, supported by the Department of Neighborhood and Community Relations, between City departments and cultural communities as well as other under-represented groups. The dialogues take City staff outside of City buildings to meet various community leaders in places where communities are already meeting to talk about issues relevant to their daily lives. Staff returned to the communities in subsequent phases to report back on how their feedback were used in decisions-

<!-- page 290 -->
# Planning Process

<<FIGURE>>

making, and brought City leaders to discuss relevant topical issues.

**Street Festivals** – During the summer and fall months, vibrant festivals draw cultural communities, residents, business owners, visitors, and youth to destinations around the city. City staff engaged with community members at various events such as Open Streets Minneapolis, Juneteenth, Somali Independence Day Festival, and May Day where attendees visited various exhibits, and watched performances and small presentations in parks and on streets. Creative tools were activated such as Imagining Equity, the Minneapolis 2040 mobile engagement tool. Other activities include visually interactive boards which engaged participants, and responses were recorded on cards and documented through photos.

**Artist-designed Engagement** – A collaborative process in which City staff worked together with artists to design creative engagement methods. Artists focused on designing tools that helped reached out to diverse populations, and helped build capacity through art in order to make planning fun and accessible. Examples of artist-designed engagement activities included: artist-designed open houses, Imagining Equity - mobile engagement tool, performances, and infographics.

**Online Engagement** – During each engagement phase a collection of online engagement opportunities were made available which coincide with each major community workshop. Materials at in-person workshops were made available online such as exercises, maps, and surveys. This included online engagement activities such as the Planning for Equity, Housing for All, “What can we Do?”, and the Make a Map tool.

**Meeting-in-a-Box** – Meeting-in-a-Box is a civic engagement tool designed for use by community groups, neighborhood associations, or friends to gather at a convenient time and location to share their ideas. It contains a packet of materials, which were made accessible online, with directions to host the meeting and how to submit input to City staff. During subsequent phases of the process Meeting-in-a-Box was updated to reflect new questions and content that was engaged on during that period.

**Tweet with a Planner** – A planner was made available during the lunch hour to interact with the public on certain

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 291 -->
# Planning Process

topics during each phase of engagement. During each of the events, a series of engagement questions were posed by planning staff that led to a live conversation on Twitter through a series of Tweets. Participants were able to provide feedback on certain topics, and have a dialogue with community members.

City staff collected demographic information in-large convening events, on the website, and in Meeting-in-a-Box from willing-respondents who wished to provide that information to help staff provide feedback on the process to make sure the process was as inclusive as possible. Other activity tailored to each phase of the process includes graphics and interactive mapping exercises used to support the engagement process.

### Internal Structure
The comprehensive planning process was guided by three formal bodies: the Steering Committee, Topical Research Teams, and CPED Long Range Planning.

The Steering Committee is comprised of eight individuals who are either elected officials or department leadership whose committees, boards/commissions, and departments are strongly correlated with long range comprehensive planning and visioning. The committee guided the planning process, reviewed draft material, and provided input into the engagement process. Steering Committee members included:

* CPED Executive Director (co-chair)
* City Coordinator (co-chair)
* Mayor
* Chair of the Zoning & Planning Committee of the City Council
* Chair of the Transportation & Public Works Committee of the City Council
* Director of Equity and Inclusion
* Director of Public Works
* Commissioner of Health

The Topical Research Teams included over 150 staff from around the Enterprise as well as interjurisdictional partners. These staff teams are organized around 15 different topics related to the built, natural, and economic environment of the city. They were responsible for providing technical expertise and experiences on applicable subject matter and policy development.

CPED Long Range Planning served as the Project Management Team for the update to the comprehensive plan. Their responsibilities included coordination with the Steering Committee, and providing technical assistance and guidance to the Topical Research Teams. In addition, the Project Management Team is responsible for the plan production, preparation of draft content for review, the facilitation of civic engagement, and incorporation of public comment.

### How has engagement feedback been used and documented?
Documentation of each step of the engagement process was critical in defining the direction and priorities for Minneapolis 2040 as well as better understanding which stakeholder groups are being reached. For each event and activity, staff documented the following information:

* What was the purpose of the engagement?
* What questions or issues were identified?
* What methods were used?
* Who participated?
* What feedback was received?
* How was the feedback collected and analyzed?
* What decisions did this input influence?

The documentation of engagement shaped the content process for each successive phase of engagement. City staff collected demographic information in large convening events and on the website, from willing-respondents who wished to provide that information, in order to help staff make sure the process was as inclusive as possible. Other in-person methods were used to reach key audiences who

<!-- page 292 -->
# Planning Process

may not be able to attend a large event, or be inclined to interact with technology. At the end of each phase, an Engagement Summary was published to provide an overview of engagement activities that were made available on the project website.

### What did we hear?
At the end of each phase a summary of engagement activities and transcriptions of all written feedback was packaged together and published online on the project website: minneapolis2040.com/planning-process.

<!-- page 293 -->
# Phase 1: Launch (April 2016)

<<FIGURE>>

The first phase of the project focused on building awareness of Minneapolis 2040 with an exploration of emerging ideas and treads, current conditions, and existing policies. The process kicked off in April 2016. During this phase of engagement, City staff asked participants how they wanted to be engaged, what their existing priorities and initiatives are about, and what their big ideas were for the future of the city.

The comprehensive planning process kicked off at the annual Community Connections Conference, hosted by the Department of Neighborhood and Community Relations, on April 2, 2016 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. The conference is designed to create and strengthen relationships and collaborations between residents, neighborhood organizations, cultural communities, and the City to collectively address systemic issues and explore unique-innovative solutions.

City staff collaborated with cultural organizations to start initial discussion and learn about the community’s concerns and issues that they have been working on. The City held a series of Community Dialogues to raise awareness about the planning effort to update the city’s comprehensive plan, and seek feedback on how they would like the City to engage with them throughout the project.

<<FIGURE>>

### Phase 1 Engagement Activities

*Big Ideas: Your Minneapolis*
*Community Connections Conference*
4/2/16
*Minneapolis Convention Center*

*South Minneapolis Housing Fair*
4/16/16
*YWCA Minneapolis Sports Center*

*MayDay Parade and Festival*
5/1/16
*Powderhorn Park*

*May 4th Attendance Fair*
5/4/16
*East Phillips Community Center*

*Southeast Asian Community Dialogue*
3/11/16
*HAMAA*

*East African Community Dialogue*
3/11/16
*Isuroon*

<!-- page 294 -->
# Planning Process

*Metropolitan Urban Indian Directors (MUID)*  
*3/29/16*  
*Minneapolis American Indian Center*  

*Phase 1 Meeting-in-a-Box (Packet and Presentation)*

### Engagement Questions
During the Launch phase, staff asked how people want to be engaged and asked for big ideas for the future of the city.

* What are your big ideas for the future of Minneapolis?
* What are some of the issues that your community is working on?
* How would you like to be engaged throughout the comprehensive planning process?

<<FIGURE>>

### Methods
The comprehensive planning process kicked off at the annual Community Connections Conference at the Minneapolis Convention Center on April 2, 2016. A series of workshops for the comprehensive plan were hosted based on the 6 comprehensive plan values of equity, economic competitiveness, growth, sustainability, governance, and livability. City staff hosted panel discussions to inform participants about how these lenses align with city goals, and how that affects residents in the city.

<<FIGURE>>

The first round of Community Dialogues was hosted by several cultural organizations throughout the month of March in advance of the conference. Community Dialogues are facilitated conversations between City departments and cultural communities as well as other under-represented groups. Staff presented an overview of the comprehensive plan, and how those policies in the plan inform the decisions made by the City. Communities were then asked about the issues that the community is working on, and how they would like to be engaged throughout the comprehensive planning process.

During the remainder of the Phase 1, Staff attended street festivals and events throughout the city in order to raise awareness about the project. Artist graphics and project cards were distributed at various events to connect the public to online resources and future engagement activities.

### What Did We Hear?
Much of the focus in Phase 1: Launch was raising awareness of planning effort for the update to the City's comprehensive plan. Initial conversations were held with various cultural communities. A summary handout of Phase 1 engagement activities can be found online at: minneapolis2040.com/planning-process-phase-1-launch

#### What are your big ideas?

<!-- page 295 -->
### Planning Process

* The city becomes more sensitive to environmental justice issues, particularly in NE Minneapolis, and acts accordingly.

* I’m hoping we have self-driving cars by 2040 and I’m hoping that this city continues to be #1 for biking, #1 for parks, and #1 for residents who go outside in all weather conditions.

* Have a variety of TRULY affordable (and livable!) housing options, for singles and families.

**What are some of the issues that your community is working on?**

* Communities need more culturally accessible resources to start businesses, find housing, and physical and social health services.

* There is a lack of housing choices for large families, especially for multi-generational households.

* Parks and public spaces can be unsafe to walk to and difficult to use.

**How will you like to be engaged?**

* The City needs to go to the community, and return to the group after every phase of engagement to report back on what has happened and how the gathered feedback was used.

* Host a mix of open houses on various topics that people can engage on and small focus group discussions.

### Next Steps/How was the feedback used?
The City heard from the community that in order to have authentic engagement, the City must go to the community and show how their feedback is used in order to build trust and empower community members. Staff worked with cultural organizations to build a relationship for future engagement, and identified future opportunities to return with City leaders.

Additionally, participants from the Community Dialogues also identified several topics that are relevant to their lives which included housing, economic development, and health. There was a concern that there are so many topics related to the comprehensive plan, and it was important to organize future engagement around topics that are applicable to the lives of the community. Staff worked to prioritize key topics that are relevant to each unique community, which set the foundation for the organization of engagement content for Phase 2: Big Questions.

<!-- page 296 -->
# Phase 2: Big Questions (May - December 2016)

<<FIGURE>>

In the Phase 2: Big Questions, Topical Research Teams began the work of analyzing existing policy – assessing trends, backgrounds, and priority issues related to their topic. Additionally, the teams had the benefit of public input on “big ideas” gathered from the Launch. To set the stage for this phase, the Topical Research Teams identified topics for the community to address in preparation for crafting their topical priorities. City staff did not conduct in-person engagement on every topic, but instead focused on some of the core elements of the plan – transportation, jobs, housing, and the environment – and visions for tying all the pieces together. The engagement questions were designed to engage with the public on their perceptions, values, aspirations, and experiences in their daily lives.

Throughout the summer, City staff continued to raise awareness about Minneapolis by reaching out to key audiences at street and cultural festivals. Staff tabled at various events throughout the City and encouraged the community to share their vision of the future of Minneapolis through Ernest Hemingway’s Six Word Story. Stories were recorded on cards, and shared with participants throughout each event.

In order to help achieve the engagement goals and objectives of integrating artistic strategies into the engagement process, the City issued a Call for Artists to help design and engage traditionally underrepresented communities in civic processes. Artists responded to the call for three different projects:

* **Social Practice Artist** – The purpose of this project was to hire an artist or artist team to assist in engaging public meeting attendees during a set of open houses. The social practice artist is responsible for designing meetings that are fun, thought-provoking, interactive, and family friendly.

* **Happenings Project** – The purpose of this project was to hire an artist or artist team to assist in engaging the community during a set of open houses. This project resulted in an artist-designed performance during the meetings that raises awareness of comprehensive plan issues and offer thought-provoking questions for the audience to consider rated to the plan.

* **Mobile Engagement Tool** – The purpose of this project was to hire an artist or artist team to design and fabricate a highly portable and durable engagement tool that can be used for indoor and outdoor engagement activities such as street and cultural festivals and large events.

Artist Monica Sheets was selected as the social practice artist to help design engagement activities, and worked alongside consultant Community Design Group (CDG), to implement and design two open houses that took place in Phase 2: Big Questions. Artist Eric F. Avery was brought on board for the Happenings Project, and the artist team of Mike Hoyt and Molly Van Avery was selected to commission the mobile engagement tool and carry out engagement in subsequent phases.

Phase 2 culminated in an engagement push in October and November that included online engagement materials and questions, Tweet with a Planner, an updated Meeting-in-a-Box, eight Community Dialogue listening sessions with key audiences, and two identical open houses on the north and south sides of the city.

<!-- page 297 -->
Planning Process

***

<<FIGURE>>

### Phase 2 Engagement Activities

*Big Questions Open House - MGM*
*10/25/16 - Midtown Global Market*

*Big Questions Open House - NC*
*10/27/16 - North Commons Park*

*Juneteenth*
*6/18/16 - North Mississippi Regional Park*

*Somali Independence Day*
*7/9/16 - East Lake St.*

*Open Streets - Lake Street*
*7/24/16 - East Lake St.*

*Cedar Riverside Health Fair*
*8/5/16 - Brian Coyle Center*

*Open Streets - West Broadway*
*9/10/16 - West Broadway*

*Monarch Festival*
*9/10/16 - Lake Nokomis*

*PARTNERS with Youth Conference*
*9/16/16 - Minneapolis Convention Center*

*Metropolitan Urban Indian Directors (MUID)*
*9/27/16 - Minneapolis American Indian*
*Center*

*African American Leadership Forum (AALF)*
*10/8/16 - Hallie Q. Brown Community*
*Center, St. Paul. MN*

*Senior Center Community Dialogue*
*10/26/16 - Skyway Senior Center*

*Latino Community Dialogue*
*10/26/16 - Waite House*

*NACDI Breakfast Bites*
*11/2/16 - All My Relations Gallery*

*Minneapolis Advisory Committee on People with*
*Disabilities*
*11/2/16 - City Hall*

*Minneapolis Youth Congress*
*11/10/16 - Central Library*

*Metropolitan Urban Indian Directors*
*Housing Subcommittee*
*11/21/16 - American Indian OIC*

*Southeast Asian Community Dialogue*
*12/9/16 - Harrison Community Center*

*Tweet with a Planner*
*10/20/16*

*Digital Workshop*
*October - November 2016*

*Phase 2 Meeting-in-a-Box (Packet)*

<!-- page 298 -->
### Engagement Questions

For the earlier part of the phase, the public engaged on the question of their vision for Minneapolis by asking their “Big Ideas”. Community members were engaged at street and cultural festivals through the summer and asked to share their vision. Later in the fall, City staff engaged on the public’s experiences on topical elements around housing, jobs, transportation, the environment and the vision for tying it all together. These engagement questions included:

* Share your six-word story for the future of Minneapolis!

* Transportation: How do you get around the city today? How do you think your transportation needs will change by 2040?

* Jobs: What opportunities do you need to help you feel financially stable and secure? How will your employment needs change between now and 2040?

* Housing: Are you satisfied with the housing options available to you right now? If not, what’s missing? How will your housing needs change between now and 2040?

* Environment: Are we, the people of Minneapolis, doing enough to improve the environment? If not, what’s missing? How do you think your life will be different in 2040 as a result of climate change?

* Vision/Tying it Together: What does your ideal Minneapolis look like in 2040? What makes you feel connected to your neighborhood?

<<FIGURE>>

### Methods

Staff attended street and cultural festivals to raise awareness of Minneapolis 2040 and seek “Big Ideas” for the future of Minneapolis. At each of these events staff used coloring activities to draw youth and kids in to have a discussion about the future of the city, and to envision their community when they have aged 20 years. Participants were given an overview of the comprehensive plan, and Minneapolis 2040 project information on post cards. Participants were asked to share their ideas with a Six Word Story. Stories were recorded on cards, and shared with participants throughout each event that were hung on clothes lines.

<<FIGURE>>

A second round of Community Dialogues were hosted in the community. In earlier discussions, communities identified the need to focus the conversation around two or three topic areas, so staff returned with key discussion questions around transportation, jobs, housing, and the environment. City staff also returned with Department Leaders to engage and listen to participants. Participants were asked to share their experiences around those topics today, and how those needs may change in the future.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 299 -->
# Planning Process

Two community meetings were held at the end of October, one at the Midtown Global Market and the other at North Commons Park. Community members interacted with staff at topical stations on housing, jobs, transportation, and the environment. Monica Sheets, a social practice artist, was a major contributor in designing meetings that were fun, thought-provoking, interactive and family friendly. This included writing the engagement questions, subcontracting artists, and soliciting feedback on the engagement process.

<<FIGURE>>

On more visionary questions, poets and graphic artists listened to participants share their perspectives and aspirations and represented their responses through poetry or visual art. Participants also had the opportunity to take part of a mini focus group called “Dig Deep with a Planner” which was staff led discussions about the participants’ choice of topics.

Eric F. Avery, a performance artist, interactively engaged participants in a performance called TV2040, a fake television program being recorded live in 2040, which included a game show and 1 on 1 interviews with participation from the public.

<<FIGURE>>

Community members unable to attend the public meetings had access to the same content, questions, and feedback opportunities via the project website through interactive graphics and comment boxes. Another online method used was Tweet with a Planner. Over the lunch hour City staff posed questions based on the six Comprehensive Plan Values for community members to engage on.

<<FIGURE>>

### What Did We Hear?

Engagement feedback collected throughout Phase 2 were transcribed and organized under themes that were representative of all the comments. The themes produced were an attempt to show the range of comments that were received. It shows the depth of comments that did not necessarily fall into the predefined topics of the comprehensive plan, but shows the concerns and ideas shared by participants. These themes include:

*   Arts
*   Buildings
*   Community and People
*   Comp Plan
*   Economic Development
*   Education
*   Equity

<!-- page 300 -->
# Planning Process

*   Gentrification and Displacement
*   Governance
*   Growth
*   Health
*   Heritage Preservation
*   Housing
*   Land Use
*   Parks and Open Space
*   Public Safety
*   Streets
*   Sustainability
*   Transit
*   Transportation

Themes that informed engagement in future phases are highlighted below, which includes collected comments and summaries.

### Equity

*   Participants identified many areas of inequity and disparity in the city, including air quality, access to jobs, housing, education, income, and access to City resources.
*   The city needs more economic investment zones to help build development in historically abandoned and underinvested neighborhoods.
*   Invest more in areas with the most inequities. For example, complete the bicycle infrastructure, spur development, improve air and water quality, maintain affordable housing, and expand number of high-frequency bus routes. How do we invest in communities while not displacing families of color and small businesses?
*   City government needs to be representative of the people in the community
*   We have to change structures of power and privilege relative to policing and repair the community’s trust in these systems.

### Community and People

*   We need to maintain affordability and the high quality of life in Minneapolis, especially for people of color so they are not driven out like they have been in other cities.
*   There is a need for culturally-specific programming. Examples cited include language and youth enrichment programs that preserve Native culture and a community center for members of the Southeast Asian community.
*   Many people are cognizant of the fact that we will all be older in 2040. We need to design our city with aging in mind.

### Housing

*   There is a need for housing for large families that is within a household’s budget – sometimes families have to ignore their lease requirements so they can have more family members live with them. This includes multi-generational families.
*   Landlord issues are a problem. Tenants are uncertain what it means for them when their landlord’s rental license gets revoked and landlords are taking advantage of tenants with charging for repairs, cleaning on top of damage deposit, and unloading of taxes.
*   There are not enough affordable housing options in Minneapolis. Families eventually move out into the suburbs because housing in the city is too expensive.

### Economic Development

*   City resources and regulations for small businesses need to be more transparent and user-friendly, including financing programs and licensing.

<!-- page 301 -->
# Planning Process

* The City needs to address educational disparities by supporting unique programs that provide skills training for people at all ages to prepare them for high-demand jobs.

* There should be more pathways to high-demand jobs and the removal of barriers to entry, such as criminal background disqualifiers and degree requirements that aren’t necessary.

* People want transit connections between job centers and where people live.

* There needs to be more options of spaces for small businesses that are affordable.

### Transportation

* Walkable, people-centered neighborhoods are sustainable and livable.

* Bike infrastructure needs to accommodate users of various levels of experience that makes it safe and accessible for all to use.

* More high-frequency bus routes in more parts of the city.

* Transportation investments can reduce disparities by connecting people to amenities like parks, schools, businesses, and people.

### Gentrification and Displacement

* Cultural communities fear the loss of housing, economic status, and cultural identity.

* Renters are worried about rising rents that will displace them from their communities.

* How can we be honest with ourselves about gentrification and the racialized harm it entails?

### Health

* Family stability and a healthy home can help youth with school attendance by improving physical, spiritual, and mental well-being.

* More affordable fitness and exercise options are needed throughout the city, particularly for youth and seniors.

All the raw data collected from Phase 2: Big Questions, an overview of themes of the feedback that was collected, and a summary handout of engagement activities can be found on the website: minneapolis2040.com/planning-process.

### Next Steps/How was the feedback used?
A common theme that was heard throughout Phase 2 engagement was the topic of racial equity on topics such as housing, jobs, transportation, the environment, and health. Community members acknowledged that disparities between people of color and indigenous communities compared to white people continues to persist, and that there is a lack of opportunities for economic mobility and access to healthy and safe homes that meets their needs.

The engagement feedback influenced City staff to formulate overarching goals for the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the goals is to state the plan’s intent as clearly as possible, and to provide guidance for staff in developing the draft comprehensive plan.

The history of systematic racism and its influence on today’s conditions became a focal point of discussion among many community members. This influenced City staff’s direction in the design of engagement around content in order to raise the narrative of racial inequities and the history of it in Minneapolis for Phase 3: Policy Framework.

<!-- page 302 -->
# Phase 3: Policy Framework (January - December 2017)

<<FIGURE>>

Phase 3: Policy Framework began with the development of the overarching goals for Minneapolis 2040. City staff reviewed engagement feedback from prior phases, and developed overarching goals to state the intent of the plan in order to provide guidance for staff in developing draft comprehensive plan policies. A key theme staff heard from engagement throughout engagement was Equity. Equity, a key theme and comprehensive plan value, was heard on various topics such as housing, jobs, transportation, the environment, and health. As a result of engagement, City staff developed fourteen goals for Minneapolis 2040 that were adopted by the Minneapolis City Council in April 2017.

Phase 3 occurred throughout 2017 and was divided into two rounds of engagement in order to increase opportunities for engagement and develop a framework for the comprehensive plan. Phase 3A lasted from the spring through the fall of 2017 with the objective to gather feedback on strategies related to the goals through the lens of racial equity.

The City returned to the community in the winter of 2017 known as Phase 3B with the following objectives:

*   Report back on what was heard during Phase 3A
*   Reaffirm the feedback by providing supporting information and context
*   Seek feedback on draft policy directions, and how to apply them geographically to expand opportunities for housing, jobs and improve connectivity.

One of the driving influences of today's racial disparities, in such topics as housing, is the systematic inequities that are deeply rooted in discriminatory policies and practices. The top goal for Minneapolis 2040 is: *"In 2040, Minneapolis will have significantly reduced economic, housing, safety, and health disparities among people of color and indigenous peoples compared with white people."* Phase 3A engagement activities were designed to gather input about strategies to achieve the Minneapolis 2040 goals by framing the discussion about the historical context of past planning and housing-related decisions and their negative effects on communities through the lens of racial equity. In the map below, red denotes where racial covenants have been found, while blue indicates no racial covenants.

<<FIGURE>>

*Map showing where racial covenants have been found in Minneapolis (in red) and where they have not (blue).*

<!-- page 303 -->
# Planning Process

Areas of the city that lack housing choice today were built that way intentionally due to zoning regulations and federal housing policies that worked together to determine who could live where, and in what type of housing through what is called ‘redlining’. One of the key projects that informed content for Phase 3A was Mapping Prejudice, a project working to identify and map racially restrictive covenants, and racially-restrictive deeds, from the 20th century that prevented people who were not white from buying or occupying property within Minneapolis. This project was undertaken by Augsburg University and the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) at the University of Minnesota.

An integral piece of Phase 3A engagement was also the unveiling of a new mobile engagement tool called Imagining Equity. A mobile engagement tool is a highly portable and durable tool that can be used for engagement activities at street and cultural festivals. Local artists, Molly Van Avery and Mike Hoyt collaborated with staff to design a tool to tell the story about the historic context of inequities through the use of scrolls depicting the history and present day conditions called crankies. Participants interacted with the tool, and created their own crankies to share their vision for addressing racial disparities.

<<FIGURE>>

Phase 3B culminated with an engagement push throughout the winter of 2017 with online engagement activities and a series of open houses.

<<FIGURE>>

## Phase 3A Engagement Activities

*Community Connections Conference*
*4/1/17 - Minneapolis Convention Center*

*Lao Community Dialogue (LACM)*
*4/5/17 - Harrison Recreation Center*

*Hmong Community Dialogue (HAMAA)*
*4/7/17 - Harrison Recreation Center*

*Homelessness Community Dialogue*
*4/8/17 - People Serving People*

*Minneapolis Advisory Committee on Aging*
*4/13/17 - City Hall Minneapolis*

*Youth Congress*
*4/13/17 - Central Library*

*Minneapolis Advisory Committee on People with Disabilities*
*4/19/17 - City Hall*

*Elliot Park Earth Fest*
*4/20/17 - Elliot Park*

*Latino Community Dialogue*

<!-- page 304 -->
# Planning Process

4/25/17 - Mercado Central

*Metropolitan Urban Indian Directors (MUID)*
4/25/17 - Minneapolis American Indian
Center

*MayDay Festival*
5/7/17 - Powderhorn Park

*MUID Housing Subcommittee*
5/12/17 - American Indian OIC

*Juneteenth*
6/17/17 - North Mississippi Regional Park

*Somali Independence Day Festival*
7/1/17 - Lake St.

*African American Leadership Forum (AALF)*
Quarterly Meeting
7/8/17 - Hallie Q. Brown Community
Center, St. Paul. MN

*Open Streets – Lake + Minnehaha*
7/23/17 - Lake St.

*Open Streets – Northeast*
8/6/17 - University Ave and Hennepin Ave

*Kulture Klub Collaborative*
8/10/17 - Youthlink

*Emerge MN*
8/22/17 - Cedar Riverside Opportunity
Center

*Open Streets – West Broadway*
9/9/17 - West Broadway

*Central Neighborhood Fair*
9/16/17 - Green Central Park

*Tweet with a Planner*
4/18/17

*Digital Workshop*
April - May 2017

*Phase 3A Meeting-in-a-Box (Host Packet and Participant
Packet)*

### Engagement Questions -- Phase 3A
The focus on much of engagement was on housing
opportunities and access. Participants were asked to share
their ideas on strategies to create housing opportunities
and solutions that will enable those investments to
occur. Another set of questions were created for the
Imagining Equity - Mobile Engagement Tool, specifically for
interactions at street and cultural festivals based upon the
content created for the crankies.

#### Housing

• How can the comprehensive plan increase access and
opportunities for housing?

#### Imagining Equity

• The year is 2040. Minneapolis has eliminated race-based
disparities. What is it like in 2040?

• Draw Minneapolis in 2040, a city that is healing and
reconciling forward. What does it look like? How do we
get there?

### Methods -- Phase 3A
For the second year in a row, Minneapolis 2040 played a
prominent role at the Community Connections Conference.
It was scheduled as part of the kickoff to a month-long
engagement push that lasted through April. Minneapolis
2040 played a role as an exhibitor with artist-designed
activities, and hosted two breakout sessions: one on

<!-- page 305 -->
# Planning Process

gentrification, and another on racially-restrictive covenants in Minneapolis.

Participants engaged in many activities related to the exhibit such as a facilitated discussion called "Planning for Equity" in which staff provided a historical context of transportation and housing policies and their impacts on equity and growth in Minneapolis. In a game called "Envisioning Housing for All", participants redesign a neighborhood in order to provide housing opportunities. Participants arranged new buildings on a large poster board in relation to streets, parks, among other amenities, and scored points based on where blocks were placed. Afterwards, artists used the participants' layouts to create 3-D models to share for further discussion.

<<FIGURE>>

Staff utilized archival maps and resources to raise awareness about these historical planning practices and policies in order to seek feedback to address the issues of the lack of housing diversity, and how to increase housing choice to live to in any neighborhood in the city. Participants were encouraged to think about how to help reverse these disparities using a planning toolkit of regulations and programs. Maps and resources that were made available include:

* Redlining – Guidelines on mortgage lending, originally created by the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) in the 1930s, which influence private and public leaders in the awarding of mortgages.

<<FIGURE>>

*Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) map of Minneapolis from the 1930s*

* Racial Covenants – Where restrictions were racial restrictions were imposed on properties.

* Poverty and Race – Areas of concentrated poverty with at least 50% people of color

A third round of Community Dialogues was hosted in which redlining and racially restrictive covenants maps were key materials to the discussion about strategies. Staff returned to communities with department leaders and representatives from various Topical Research Teams to engage with community members and seek strategies to reverse these disparities. Much of the discussion focused on strategies that allowed equitable opportunities, and the prioritization of resources that invest in growth that benefits communities that already live in the community.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 306 -->
### Imagining Equity: Minneapolis 2040 Mobile Engagement Tool

Over the summer, City staff unveiled a new mobile engagement tool called Imagining Equity. A mobile engagement tool is a highly portable and durable tool that can be used for engagement activities at street and cultural festivals. Local artists, Molly Van Avery and Mike Hoyt, collaborated with staff to design a tool to tell the story about the historic context of racial inequities in Minneapolis, and gather community feedback on how to address these disparities.

Two scrolls, called crankies, were the centerpiece of the tool in which users would cycle through to see hand-sketch images representing the history of Minneapolis, and present day conditions through the lens of racial equity. The history crankie, labeled “Our Past”, depicts Native Americans, the history of colonization of tribal lands, and social struggles of disenfranchised communities over time due to discriminatory policies and structures of oppression which has resulted in racial disparities. The second crankie, called “Our Present”, frames this narrative in contemporary issues that communities face such as the lack of affordable housing, homelessness, and displacement.

<<FIGURE>>

After participants navigated through the crankies they were invited to share ideas about what the city should be doing to address these disparities, and what do these outcomes look like in the year 2040. Participants provided their feedback by creating their own crankie on a long sheet of paper through drawings and text, or by writing down their comment or idea on a piece of paper. Crankies created by participants were electronically scanned, and the author kept the paper copy.

### What Did We Hear? -- Phase 3A

Engagement feedback collected throughout Phase 3A was transcribed and organized under the 14 overarching comprehensive plan goals. Staff heard a range of comments about housing, and feedback related to the comprehensive plan goals. Much of the feedback shared a range of people’s experience around access, affordability, and options on various topics around housing, jobs, transportation, and health. Below is a summary representing a range of themes that were heard, but it does not reflect all the comments collected.

<<FIGURE>>

Comments shared include people experiencing discrimination in accessing and tenanting rental properties, and the lack of accountability by landlords to maintain their properties. Others talk about having limited options of where to live due to the lack of affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout the city. Families also shared their experience of not having enough housing options that will be able to accommodate their family due to their diverse multi-generational household that are based on their cultural preference, and sentiments of fear due to gentrification and displacement that occurs with rising housing costs and development.

<!-- page 307 -->
Comments around jobs and retail identified investments that are needed to address the lack of options and resources necessary to support small businesses, prepare residents for living-wage jobs, and enable access to retail, goods, and services where people live.

Another theme among comments was related to transportation and the need for more sustainable modes of travel. Walking, biking, and public transportation are modes of travel that should be prioritized in order to ensure the safety of users, support healthy lifestyles, and protect the environment for future generations.

All the raw data collected from Phase 3A and a summary handout of engagement activities can be found online at: minneapolis2040.com/planning-process-phase-3a-policy-framework.

### Next Steps/How was the feedback used?
City staff took the raw data and summarized the feedback into themes. Phase 3A engagement feedback was used to draft policy statements, and develop policy language in order to help achieve the comprehensive plan goals.

The policy statements were then used to inform and design engagement content for Phase 3B: Policy Framework that occurred during winter 2017.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 308 -->
# Phase 3B: Policy Framework (Winter 2017)

<<FIGURE>>

After a series of Community Dialogues and a summer of engagement the public at street festivals, City staff worked with the Topical Research Teams to incorporate engagement feedback into policy statements, and draft comprehensive plan policy. After incorporating feedback into the revised draft policy staff still had questions around how growth policies will be applied throughout the city which needed public feedback.

Throughout 2017, City staff learned a lot from Minneapolis residents about their vision for the future of the city. Staff heard that not everyone has the choice and access to the type of housing that meets their needs, and are unable to shop for groceries near their home, especially without a car. Additionally, staff also heard that there is a desire for the city to be more walkable, bikeable, and mass transit-friendly. City staff proposed some ideas on how to achieve this, and asked the public to comment and identify places in the city to expand these opportunities. The main objectives of Phase 3B engagement were to:

* Report back on what was heard during Phase 3A

* Reaffirm the feedback by providing supporting information and context

* Seek feedback on draft policy directions, and how to apply them geographically to expand opportunities for housing, jobs and improve connectivity

The City hosted open houses in each of the five planning sectors of the city. Staff partnered with neighborhood organizations to host these meetings and conduct outreach to residents. Artist Monica sheets collaborated with staff to design engagement activities that were fun, engaging, and family-friendly.

Phase 3B engagement started at the end of November 2017 with the release of online engagement activities which included a parallax – an online story-telling tool which images and text for people to scroll through and provide feedback, Make a Map – an online mapping tool, and the an updated Meeting-in-a-Box for Phase 3B.

<<FIGURE>>

### Phase 3B Engagement Activities

*East Open House*
*12/2/17 - Van Cleve Park*

*North Open House*
*12/5/17 - Farview Park*

*South Open House*
*12/9/17 - Roosevelt High School*

<!-- page 309 -->
# Planning Process

*Southwest Open House*
*12/11/17 - Martin Luther King Park*

*Downtown Open House*
*1/23/18 - Plymouth Congressional Church*

*Online Parallax*

*Make a Map (Maptionnaire)*

*Phase 3B Meeting-in-a-Box (Host Packet and Participant Packet)*

### Engagement Questions - Phase 3B
Activities for Phase 3B were organized in a way to guide users through prior engagement efforts, and how the feedback that has been collected has informed decisions and policy in subsequent phases. Content was divided into areas of focus for the comprehensive plan: housing, retail, streets, complete communities, and climate change. Participants were prompted with feedback that was collected, and were provided ideas on what the City can do to meet the comprehensive plan goals.

<<FIGURE>>

Engagement during Phase 3B asked participants to reflect on proposed ideas and their effectiveness in achieving the goals for the comprehensive plan. Participants were asked to rate these proposed ideas on a scale ranging from a rating of “It’s Effective” to “Let’s Rethink”. Participants were asked to explain their rating through a comment.

Below are the proposed ideas organized by topical areas:

#### Housing

* Build a wider variety of housing types at all affordability levels.

* Increase the supply of housing to help keep all housing more affordable.

#### Retail

* As jobs increase, make sure we have enough places for new businesses close to where Minneapolis residents live.

* Provide better mass transit to places of employment.

#### Streets

* Ensure the city’s streets prioritize walking, bicycling, and mass transit.

* Make the city more pleasant for walking and continue to build a system of protected bike lanes.

<<FIGURE>>

#### Complete Communities

* Build more housing, retail, and places for employment, especially near mass transit.

* Ensure people can get goods and services close to where they live by building more stores in under-served areas.

<!-- page 310 -->
## Climate Change

* Retrofit existing buildings to reduce energy consumption and dependency on fossil fuels.

* Ensure that new buildings are as energy efficient as possible.

An integral part of feedback was on where to apply these proposed ideas geographically in the city. In online and in-person interactions the public were provided three different maps to identify opportunities to expand housing, jobs and retail, and improve connectivity. The questions that accompanied these maps are:

* Show us...opportunities to expand housing choice. Please identify locations to expand housing choice and tell us why.

<<FIGURE>>

* Show is...opportunities to improve access to retail. Please identify locations to expand retail access and tell us why.

* Show us...opportunities to expand connectivity via walking, biking, and transit. Please identify locations to expand connectivity via walking, biking, and transit.

### Methods - Phase 3B

Parallax – an online story-telling tool which images and text for people to scroll through and provide feedback. Staff utilized this tool to inform the public, and update new participants, of the work that has been done to date. Users were prompted with feedback collected from engagement, and supporting information and data. For those who were interested in learning more about the supporting information links were provided to maps and resources. As the user navigated through the parallax they were given the proposed ideas and were asked to rate those ideas and provide comments. The parallax was adapted for materials for the updated Meeting-in-a-Box, online engagement materials, and the open houses.

<<FIGURE>>

Make a Map (maptionnaire) – Maptionnaire is an online mapping tool used for gathering engagement feedback. The City utilized this tool to provide the public with an opportunity to identify opportunities to expand housing choice, access retail, and expand connectivity by draw shapes, lines, and points on a map. For each data point drawn users were encouraged to explain why they selected that location.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 311 -->
### Planning Process

Meeting-in-a-Box – Meeting-in-a-Box was updated for Phase 3B with questions and maps from the parallax. This included maps which asked participants to identify places in the city to expand opportunities for housing, jobs and retail, and improve connectivity.

### What Did We Hear? - Phase 3B

Much of the questions around engagement was centered on the effectiveness of the proposed ideas in achieving the comprehensive plan goals. There was general support of most of the proposed ideas and their effectiveness. Comments from the Rate This Action exercise reaffirmed the need to preserve affordable housing, as well as build more of it throughout all neighborhoods in the city. There was also the reoccurring theme of increasing housing opportunities for all residents by allowing more ‘missing middle’ housing, and for specific communities such as seniors, people with disabilities, and low-come households.

<<FIGURE>>

Some mixed reactions and concerns were also raised from the Rate This Action exercise. Two proposed ideas had a wider range of responses such as the Housing proposal of, “Increase the supply of housing to keep all housing more affordable”. One can infer that the thought of density could have an adverse effect on livability, and not directly address the issue of affordability, which resulted in a wider range of responses compared to other proposed ideas. Another proposed idea from Transportation, “Make the city more pleasant for walking and continue to build a system of protect bike lanes”, received similar responses. A mixed reaction can be due to sentiments towards bikers versus the merits of biking infrastructure and the opportunities that it creates for safer and sustainable modes of travel, especially for walking.

### Mapping Feedback

Mapping feedback was collected online, from stations at the open houses, and submitted via Meeting-in-a-Box. There was a pattern of overlap in lines and shapes drawn in between the maps which asked to identify opportunities for housing and jobs. Housing opportunities along high-frequency transit routes and light rail stations were consistently identified. Participants also identified areas within neighborhoods, which are off transit corridors, as opportunities to allow for more diverse housing options such as duplexes, triplexes, and 4-plexes. When asked for where retail opportunities should expand participants identified streets that today are commercial corridors, or could potentially support the expansion of these uses (i.e. downtown, Franklin Ave, East Lake St, Central Ave, West Broadway, Lowry Ave, and 38th St). These areas aligned with similar areas identified for housing opportunities which are currently or will be served by hi-frequency transit service.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 312 -->
### Planning Process

For mapping opportunities to improve connectivity, the feedback collected ranged from suggestions on infrastructure improvements to address concerns around safety and connectivity to improvements for public transportation facilitates and service. A consistent theme arose around the need for improved transit connectivity to job centers such as downtown and other commercial areas. There was sentiments of frustration for commuters who are required to make transfers in downtown Minneapolis when their movements could be more efficient if there was better service east-west or north-south, which would bypass downtown.

Biking and pedestrian infrastructure improvements for specific areas were consistently identified along commercial corridors where there tends to be a lot of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Suggestions include applications that will create an environment which would calm traffic and create a safer environment for walking and biking. These specific concerns were addressed into draft comprehensive plan policy by Topical Research Teams and the Project Team. Specific points shared from the transportation mapping exercises were forwarded to Public Works staff for consideration into future capital projects.

All the raw data collected from Phase 3B can be found online at minneapolis2040.com/planning-process-phase-3b-policy-framework.

### Next Steps/How was the feedback used?
The data collected from the mapping exercises were used to develop land use guidance for Minneapolis 2040. Data collected from the connectivity/transportation mapping exercise were forwarded to Minneapolis Public Works Staff for consideration into future capital projects.

City staff took the raw data and organized the feedback into the topical areas. Feedback from the ‘Rate This Action’ exercise affirmed the policy direction of the comprehensive plan, and the comments were used to further refine draft policy that will lead to the outcome of the draft document in Phase 4: Policy Document.

<!-- page 313 -->
## Phase 4: Policy Document (January - March 2018)

The purpose of this phase was to further develop the elements in Phase 3 into a cohesive, comprehensive document, highlighting major themes and policy. City staff used this time to develop policy content and create a draft document that was released in March 22, 2018 for Phase 5: Review.

## Phase 5: Review (March 2018 - October 2019)

In spring 2018, a draft comprehensive plan document was released for public review. From May through July a series of engagement activities were hosted to gather public feedback on the draft comprehensive plan document. At the same time the plan was reviewed by neighboring cities and applicable government jurisdictions. All comments collected during this process were compiled and presented to the City Planning Commission and the City Council to inform decisions on final plan revision and adoption.

In December 2018 at the direction of the City Council, staff submitted the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for their review. The Metropolitan Council determined at their September 25, 2019, meeting that the plan conforms to regional system plans, is consistent with the Thrive MSP 2040 regional plan, and is consistent with regional forecasts for growth. On October 25, 2019, the Minneapolis City Council adopted a resolution to approve Minneapolis 2040 with an effective date of January 1, 2020.

<!-- page 314 -->
# Small Area Plans

Explore how each small area plan is incorporated into Minneapolis 2040.

<!-- page 315 -->
# Explore How Minneapolis 2040 and Small Area Plans Interact

### How Minneapolis 2040 updates Small Area Plans in general

* **Future land use and built form guidance:** Minneapolis 2040 updates this guidance for the entire city in service to the Minneapolis 2040 goals. This new guidance is informed by the guidance of the small area plans, and updated where necessary to be consistent with the application of Minneapolis 2040 goals and policies citywide. Minneapolis 2040 will be used to guide future land use and built form guidance in areas covered by past small area plans.

* **Urban design policies:** Minneapolis 2040 includes urban design policies intended to shape the design of new buildings. This guidance is informed by the design guidance of small area plans, and applies to all new development in the city. Minneapolis 2040 will be used to guide urban design in areas covered by past small area plans.

* **Capital improvements:** Capital improvement projects that are identified in small area plans and that are yet to be implemented will be evaluated as part of the 2019 update to Access Minneapolis, the City’s transportation action plan.

* **Community Development Strategies:** Minneapolis 2040 updates Housing and Economic Competitiveness policies aimed at achieving this plans’ goals and policies. These are informed by the body of work in the last decade of small area plans. Stakeholders are encouraged to continue with community development strategies identified in small area plans that are yet to be completed and contribute to implementation of Minneapolis 2040 goals and policies.

# 38TH STREET STATION AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
This 38th Street Station Area Plan is the City’s vision for the future of the 38th Street LRT station area. It is the culmination of extensive community involvement as well as staff and consultant work. It identifies locations, priorities, and guidelines for redevelopment, including the grain mills along Hiawatha Avenue.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
Where there was a mix of residential and commercial land use fronting 38th Street in the station area plan west of Hiawatha Avenue, property is now consistently identified as future commercial in the new Minneapolis 2040 map. Properties between Hiawatha and Dight Avenues are also identified as future commercial land use, consistent with the station area plan which calls for a mix of uses. Production mixed use and urban neighborhood categories remain in some areas, largely consistent with the recommendations from the station area plan. Nodes along Minnehaha Avenue retain their future commercial land use designation, with some expansion of allowed commercial uses between 37th and 40th Streets.

The built form recommendations in the station area plan are identified with a number indicating appropriate building height on some of the properties. In many areas the recommendations are unclear or do not exist. The Minneapolis 2040 built form map identifies properties nearest the LRT station, and on property fronting Hiawatha Avenue for the greatest building bulk – at times ranging between the ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Transit 15’ categories. The 38th Street and Minnehaha Avenue corridors are labeled with the ‘Corridor 4’ category immediately fronting on the streets, which is largely consistent with the station area plan, while transitioning to the ‘Interior 3’ and ‘Interior 2’ categories for properties just off of the corridors. West of Hiawatha the ‘Corridor 4’ category is expanded further off of the corridors to allow for additional transit and commercial supportive redevelopment. Some corridors further from the station are guided for ‘Corridor 3’.

<!-- page 316 -->
## 46TH AND HIAWATHA STATION AREA MASTER PLAN

### Plan Background
The 46th and Hiawatha Station Area Master is a land use plan for transit-oriented development (TOD) near the 46th Street Hiawatha LRT station. The area of study includes Longfellow, Standish-Ericsson, and Nokomis East. It focuses on land uses, urban design, public infrastructure, and amenities located within one-half mile of the station. The plan was developed with public participation and guidance from both community and technical advisory committees. The plan informs City policy, guiding changes to the City’s Comprehensive plan, zoning regulations, redevelopment activity, and capital improvement plans.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
Future commercial land use in the Minneapolis 2040 map is largely consistent with the station area plan, with expansion shown on the edges south of 46th Street on the east side of Hiawatha and west along 46th Street from the LRT station. Production mixed use and urban neighborhood categories are utilized elsewhere in a manner consistent with the station area plan.

The built form recommendations in the station area plan are identified with a number indicating appropriate building height on some of the properties – the maximum building height identified in these documents is 4 stories. The Minneapolis 2040 built form map increases many of the bulk allowances identified in the station area plan. Particularly properties nearest the LRT station and property between Hiawatha and Snelling Avenues are guided for the greatest intensity – at times ranging between the ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Transit 10’ categories. The 34th Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue corridors are labeled with the ‘Corridor 3’ and ‘Corridor 4’ categories immediately fronting on the streets, which are not directly addressed by the station area plan, while transitioning to the ‘Interior 2’ category for properties just off of the corridors. West of Hiawatha the ‘Corridor 4’ category is expanded farther off of the corridors to allow for additional transit and commercial supportive redevelopment.

## ABOVE THE FALLS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

### Plan Background
The Above the Falls Master Plan Update was approved by the City Council on Friday, June 14, 2013. The plan updates the policy guidance for Minneapolis’ upper riverfront from the vision in the original plan adopted in 2000.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
There are very few changes to the future land use recommendations found in the master plan as they appear in the Minneapolis 2040 map. Employment districts are placed in the Production and Distribution future land use category, while other industrial properties guided for a mix of jobs, commercial, and residential uses are placed in the Production Mixed Use category. Concentrations of commercial mixed use categories can also be found in areas consistent with the master plan. The Parks boundary is consistent with what is found in the master plan as well.

The built form recommendations in the master plan are less specific than what is found in the Minneapolis 2040 future built form map. The majority of the upper riverfront falls under the ‘Corridor 6’ category, which allows 6 stories as of right. Between the river and Interstate 94, properties that fall outside the influence of the Mississippi Critical Area are guided for the ‘Production’ and ‘Transit 10’ built form categories, allowing up to 10 stories as of right. Additional height in these areas will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

<!-- page 317 -->
## AUDUBON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN

### Plan Background
The Audubon Park neighborhood undertook a planning process with the assistance of DJR Architects in the latter half of 2007 and early 2008 to develop a small area plan to guide the type and scale of future development and articulate preferred design elements that complement their area. The planning process built on the existing policy direction given by the City’s Comprehensive Plan for focusing new development along major corridors such as Central Avenue NE and Johnson Street NE and at neighborhood commercial nodes such as 29th & Johnson. The plan was approved by the City Planning Commission on April 14, 2008, and by the City Council on May 16, 2008.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
There are very few changes to the future land use recommendations found in the master plan as they appear in the Minneapolis 2040 map. Commercial mixed use future land uses are consistent with what is proposed along Johnson Street NE between 29th and 28th Avenues. Other than the commercial mixed use categories applied on Central Avenue NE, most properties within the master plan boundary falls under the Urban Neighborhood future land use category. Central Avenue, Lowry Avenue, and Johnson Street are all identified as Goods and Services corridors which allow for expansion of commercial uses under conditions outlined in the Minneapolis 2040 land use policies.

The built form recommendations in the master plan are also largely reflected in the Minneapolis 2040 future built form map – and expands the areas eligible for increased development intensity. Consistent with the way similar transit corridors are treated throughout the city, ‘Corridor 3’ and ‘Corridor 4’ is applied on the Johnson Street and Lowry Avenue frontages with the ‘Interior 2’ category applied to properties immediately adjacent to those fronting on corridors. Closer to Central Avenue the ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Transit 10’ categories are applied to better take advantage of the frequent transit service available in the corridor.

## BASSETT CREEK VALLEY MASTER PLAN

### Plan Background
In 2000 the Minneapolis City Council established the Redevelopment Oversight Committee (ROC) to guide future redevelopment of Bassett Creek Valley. The ROC consists of residents, Valley business people, City Councilmember and mayoral representatives and Ryan Companies selected as master development partner by the neighborhoods through an extensive interview process. With a foundation of grassroots community dedication and an 18-month strategic planning process, transformation of Bassett Creek Valley is ready to shift from plan to action. The rebirth of Bassett Creek Valley will be the celebrated legacy of this generation of Minneapolis leadership.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
Many land use and built form recommendations in the Bassett Creek Valley Master Plan were reinterpreted and updated through the adoption of the Van White Memorial Boulevard Station Area Plan, adopted in 2017. A summary of how those areas are represented on Minneapolis 2040 maps can be found on the Van White plan page. For the remaining areas not covered by the Van White plan, the Bassett Creek plan’s land use and built form recommendations for areas south of the creek have been accommodated through application of the Production Mixed Use and Parks and Open Space categories. Built form on the Production Mixed Use property remains relatively permissive, with the ‘Transit 30’ category applied to accommodate the mixed use development envisioned in the Bassett Creek plan.

## BRYN MAWR NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN

### Plan Background
The Bryn Mawr Neighborhood Land Use Plan was adopted in 2003 to preserve the unique characteristics of the neighborhood and to accommodate future development with minimal negative impact on the neighborhood’s

<!-- page 318 -->
quality of life. The master land use plan lays the groundwork for desired land use and future development in the neighborhood. The study is primarily intended to inventory and illustrate current problems, goals identified by the neighborhood, and recommendations on desired land uses for the future.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The plan does not contain a parcel based land use or built form map, rather a series of studies of redevelopment sites primarily located along Interstate 394. The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map follows designations that are similar to those displayed in the neighborhood plan. Commercial mixed use categories are focused along Penn Avenue, along I-394, and on properties that already host commercial activity.

The Minneapolis 2040 built form map increases expectations for development intensity on properties with the greatest level of access to I-394 and the Green Line LRT extension. While ‘Corridor 3’ is applied along Penn Avenue, ‘Corridor 6’ is applied on select parcels nearest I-394 and the Green Line LRT extension to better take advantage of these highly accessible locations.

## CEDAR-RIVERSIDE SMALL AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
The Cedar Riverside Small Area Plan is a policy document produced by the City of Minneapolis to guide land use and development in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood for the next 20 years. It builds upon the policy direction of The Minneapolis Plan, the City’s comprehensive plan. It is meant to articulate a vision for the neighborhood based on existing City policy and input from residents, businesses, students, and employees throughout the planning process. The City, public institutions, and community organizations will use the plan to guide their own decision-making processes with incremental changes to realize the full vision.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
Recommendations from the land use map in the Cedar Riverside Small Area Plan are largely left intact in the Minneapolis 2040 future land use map. Much of the plan area remains guided for future public, office, and institutional uses. Mixed use commercial categories are concentrated along Cedar and Washington Avenues as well as near the light rail stations. Riverside, Cedar, and Washington Avenues all carry the Goods and Services Corridor designation to allow for expansion of commercial uses along them. Urban neighborhood is applied in parts of the plan area that are primarily residential today.

The small area plan does not have a parcel specific built form map, and instead communicates levels of intensity through the future land use map. The majority of properties on the future built form map in Minneapolis 2040 are guided for the ‘Corridor 6’ category, with the exception of residential areas off of corridors that are guided for ‘Corridor 4’ and ‘Interior 3’. Properties nearest the two light rail stations are guided for the ‘Transit 30’ category.

## CENTRAL AVENUE SMALL AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
The Central Avenue Small Area Plan articulates a vision that will improve the relationship between the Avenue and surrounding neighborhoods. The Plan encourages robust growth by creating a lively active pedestrian-oriented street that supports existing entrepreneurs and attracts new investments while helping to stabilize surrounding neighborhoods by clearly defining the limits and location of commercial development. After an extensive public process over more than a year, the Central Avenue Small Area Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2008 and by the City Council on June 20, 2008.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map is largely consistent with the recommendations from the Central

<!-- page 319 -->
Avenue Small Area Plan. Commercial uses are encouraged along the corridors, with a concentration of activity at the intersection of Central Avenue and Lowry Avenue. The ‘Destination Mixed Use’ category is applied to that intersection, which requires commercial retail frontage in mixed use buildings. Where Minneapolis 2040 diverges from the Small Area Plan a bit is in expanding the areas along Central Avenue that allow for and encourage commercial uses as of right. This is done to expand access to commercial goods and services for residents, employees, and visitors to the area. At the southern end of the study area the concept of retaining and expanding on the employment opportunities that are offered there is retained through the use of the ‘Production Mixed Use’ category – which signals support for the ongoing eclectic nature of uses in the area.

The Minneapolis 2040 built form map attempts to reflect the recommendations from the small area plan in a way that is consistent with adopted plan goals and also includes further intensification throughout the study area to match the built form conventions in the new plan. Consistent with the way high frequency transit corridors are treated throughout the city, ‘Corridor 6’ is applied to properties fronting Central Avenue with the ‘Interior 2’ category applied on properties not fronting on corridors. Nearer the Central and 29th Avenue, Central and Lowry, and Central and 18th Avenue intersections, the built form category transitions up to the ‘Transit 10’ district to reflect the small area plan’s recognition of these being focal points of activity along the corridor. In much of the area guided ‘Production Mixed Use’ future land use, properties carry the ‘Corridor 6’ designation. A minimum building height of 2 stories is required in the ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Transit 10’ categories. Additional height throughout the study area will be considered through the conditional use permit process.

### CHICAGO AVENUE CORRIDOR PLAN

#### Plan Background
In 2010-2011 the City of Minneapolis department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) engaged area residents, institutions, businesses and other stakeholders in a corridor planning process for Chicago Avenue between I-94 and the Midtown Greenway. The project was staffed by the CPED-Planning Division and guided by a steering committee representative of key stakeholders. The City Council adopted the Chicago Avenue Corridor Plan and associated zoning changes on January 13, 2012. The Plan provides guidance for future development and land use changes, outlines multimodal transportation initiatives in the area, and includes an action plan for focusing investment on Chicago Avenue.

#### Future Land Use and Built Form
Recommendations from the land use map in the Chicago Avenue Corridor Plan are altered slightly in the Minneapolis 2040 future land use map to better reflect plan goals related to access to housing, jobs, and goods and services. Much of the plan area remains guided for future public, office, and institutional uses – which allows for continued expansion of housing and commercial along the high frequency transit route present on Chicago Avenue.

The corridor plan does not have a parcel specific built form map. Consistent with the way similar transit corridors are treated throughout the city, ‘Corridor 6’ is applied on the Chicago Avenue frontage with the ‘Interior 2’ category applied on properties not fronting the corridor. Closer to the Midtown Greenway the ‘Transit 10’ category is applied to take advantage of the increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access available at that location.

### CORCORAN MIDTOWN REVIVAL PLAN

#### Plan Background
The Corcoran Midtown Revival Plan reflects a vision for the Corcoran neighborhood in the vicinity of the Lake Street/ Midtown LRT Station. It stems from and builds upon the

<!-- page 320 -->
Small Area Plans

Hiawatha/Lake Station Area Master Plan. The Plan was adopted by the City Council on October 11th, 2002.

**Future Land Use and Built Form**
Recommendations from the land use map in the Corcoran Midtown Revival Plan are reflected in the Minneapolis 2040 future land use map largely through the use of mixed use commercial districts near the light rail station and along Lake Street, which also carries the Goods and Services Corridor designation. Remaining areas are placed in the Urban Neighborhood category.

The Corcoran Midtown Revival Plan does not have a parcel specific built form map, but does communicate some intended level of development intensity through the land use map. Consistent with the way other light rail stations are treated throughout the city, the greatest built form intensity is concentrated at the station itself. In this case, built form districts range in intensity from ‘Corridor 6’ to ‘Transit 20’. Areas within the influence of the station area but not directly on a corridor receive a range of designations depending on proximity to the station, including ‘Interior 2’, ‘Interior 3’, and ‘Corridor 4’.

### DOWNTOWN EAST NORTH LOOP PLAN

**Plan Background**
The primary goal of the Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan is to develop a vision and a framework for how new growth should occur in the underdeveloped districts of Downtown Minneapolis, particularly in areas surrounding proposed rail transit stations. The Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan was adopted by the Minneapolis Planning Commission in September 2003. It was subsequently adopted by the Minneapolis City Council in October 2003.

**Future Land Use and Built Form**
Recommendations from the master plan for the North Loop area are covered in the summary of the North Loop Small Area Plan. Remaining recommendations from the master plan, primarily in Downtown East are reflected in the Minneapolis 2040 future land use map largely through application of the Public, Office, and Institutional land use category. The category accommodates all of the uses identified as appropriate in the master plan for this part of the city. Additional guidance is given on the location and nature of required mixed use retail through application of the Destination Mixed Use category. Goods and Services Corridors on Washington and Chicago Avenues, as well as surrounding the The Commons Park further emphasize the opportunity for street fronted commercial uses.

The master plan communicates building scale with three categories of Low (1 to 4 floors), Medium (5 to 13 floors), and High (14 floors and taller). This convention is abandoned in Minneapolis 2040 in favor of generally more permissive height guidance with the application of the ‘Transit 30’ and ‘Core 50’ categories throughout the Downtown East portion of the study area. The exceptions to this application are properties that fall within the Ninth Street South Historic District, which received the ‘Corridor 6’ designation.

### ELLIOT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN

**Plan Background**
Over two years in the planning and creation, Elliot Park Neighborhood’s Master Plan is the realization of thousands of hours of effort contributed by resident participants and community stakeholders. The Master Plan is the neighborhood’s vision for directing its planning and development efforts during the upcoming years. The Elliot Park Neighborhood Master Plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the March 17, 2003 meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting of April 4, 2003.

**Future Land Use and Built Form**
The Elliot Park Neighborhood Master Plan does not contain a parcel based land use or built form map. Guided

<!-- page 321 -->
Small Area Plans

future land use in Minneapolis 2040 allows for a mix of uses throughout the neighborhood with the application of the Public, Office, and Institutional land use category. Destination Mixed Use is applied on Chicago Avenue, which is also identified as a Goods and Services Corridor – making clear the expectation that commercial retail will be included in new developments. The plan focuses on scale of development transitioning from the downtown core toward the southern edge of the neighborhood at Interstate 94. The Minneapolis 2040 built form map retains this concept while increasing the recommended base allowed building height through application of the ‘Transit 30’, ‘Transit 20’, ‘Transit 15’, ‘Transit 10’, and ‘Corridor 6’ categories.

## FRANKLIN-CEDAR/RIVERSIDE AREA MASTER PLAN

### Plan Background
The Franklin-Cedar/Riverside Transit Oriented Development Station Area Master Plan is part of a series of long-range plans for transit-oriented development (TOD) around Hiawatha LRT station sites. The area of study includes Cedar/Riverside, Seward, East Phillips, and Ventura Village. It focuses on land uses, urban design, public infrastructure, and amenities located within a 1/2-mile of the station. The purpose of the Plan is to guide changes that build upon neighborhood strengths and capitalize on opportunities.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The master plan does not contain a parcel based land use or built form map, rather a master plan concept map showing building uses and potential development footprints. Recommendations for the area in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood were updated through the Cedar-Riverside Small Area Plan process (2008). A summary of how those recommendations were incorporated into Minneapolis 2040 can be found on that plan page. For the Franklin station area portion of the master plan, a companion document was also used to inform the guidance in Minneapolis 2040. The Franklin Avenue LRT Station Area Development Implementation Plan was developed in 2005 to further the recommendations found in this master plan. Both documents call for intensification of land use and built form near the station, with a long term eye toward transitioning away from industrial uses. Minneapolis 2040 reflects those recommendations on the future land use map through application of the Community Mixed Use category throughout most of the station area. The Production Mixed Use category is applied to those areas that are still occupied by industrial uses, but are likely to redevelop in the future into uses that directly take advantage of the land’s proximity to the light rail station. The built form map guides most properties for increased development intensity through application of the ‘Transit 10’ and ‘Transit 20’ categories.

## HIAWATHA/LAKE STATION AREA MASTER PLAN

### Plan Background
The Hiawatha / Lake Station Area Master Plan was the first in a series of long-range studies being completed for transit-oriented development (TOD) around Hiawatha LRT station sites. The area of study includes portions of the Phillips Community, Corcoran Neighborhood, the Longfellow Community, and the Seward Neighborhood. It focuses on land uses, urban design, public infrastructure, and amenities located within a 1/2-mile of the station.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The master plan does not contain a parcel based land use or built form map, rather an illustrative preferred alternative map showing building uses and existing and potential development footprints. The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map follows designations that are similar to that displayed in the master plan. Commercial mixed use categories are focused along Lake Street and on properties that already host significant commercial activity. Select parcels at the heart of the commercial activity in

<!-- page 322 -->
Small Area Plans

the station area are guided for Destination Mixed Use, which will require commercial retail on the first floor of new developments. Production and Distribution areas are designated both north and south of the commercial mixed use categories on the east side of Hiawatha. Existing industrial and office focused uses in the northwest quadrant of the master plan area are guided for Production Mixed Use, to accommodate a recognized desire from the community for a transition to other uses at this location. To compensate for this loss of land protected for future production use, some existing industrially used properties on the east side of Hiawatha were added to the Production and Distribution future land use category.

The Minneapolis 2040 built form map increases expectations for development intensity at this light rail station. While ‘Corridor 6’, ‘Corridor 4’, and ‘Interior 3’ are applied along corridors and as transitional categories moving away from the center of the station area, ‘Transit 10’, ‘Transit 15’, and ‘Transit 20’ are applied nearest the station platform and along Hiawatha Avenue to better take advantage of this highly accessible location.

### HOLLAND NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL AREA PLAN

#### Plan Background
The Holland Neighborhood Improvement Organization (HNIA) spent many months planning for and drafting a small area plan for the Holland neighborhood. The plan creates a vision for the future of their neighborhood, to be incorporated into the City of Minneapolis’ Comprehensive Plan, and to guide future funding decisions for HNIA. The plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the March 5, 2015, meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting on March 20, 2015.

#### Future Land Use and Built Form
The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map is largely consistent with the recommendations found in the small area plan. Commercial mixed use categories are applied at University Avenue, Washington Street, and Monroe Street along Lowry Avenue, which also carries the Goods and Services Corridor designation which allows for expansion of commercial uses. Most of the property in the area currently used as industrial is guided for Production Mixed Use in Minneapolis 2040, reflective of the small area plan recommendation that these properties redevelop at some point into housing and flexible workshop space.

Built form recommendations from the small area plan are also largely reflected in the Minneapolis 2040 future built form map. Properties along Lowry are designated ‘Corridor 4-6’ with a transition to ‘Corridor 4’, ‘Interior 3’, and ‘Interior 2’ on blocks farther from the corridor. Properties along Central Avenue are designated ‘Corridor 6’ with the greatest development intensity permitted at the Lowry and Central intersection where the ‘Transit 10’ category is applied – more directly reflecting recommendations from the Central Avenue Small Area Plan.

### INDUSTRIAL LAND USE AND EMPLOYMENT POLICY PLAN

#### Plan Background
The purpose of the Industrial Land Use and Employment Policy Plan is to provide the City with a clear policy direction for industrial land uses and industrial sector employment within the City of Minneapolis. The plan evaluates the long-term viability of existing industrial uses and proposes a range of industrial uses to retain for the future. The plan identifies where existing and new industrial uses should be located and what components, either existing or new, these uses will require. In addition to land use, the plan provides a comprehensive examination of current and future industrial sector employment within the City of Minneapolis in relation to national and regional trends. The plan was approved by the Planning Commission on June 12, 2006 and by the City Council on November 3, 2006.

<!-- page 323 -->
**Future Land Use and Built Form**
One of the recommendations of the Industrial Land Use and Employment Policy Plan was to identify areas in the city where industrial land should be protected from encroaching competing uses. The result was the creation of Industrial Employment Districts, a land use feature in the previous comprehensive plan that attempted to do just that. The Minneapolis 2040 land use map takes the approach of achieving no net loss in these protected industrial areas, and adding more precision to the uses that are appropriate for them. The result is that the Production and Processing future land use category closely matches the geographic extents of the former employment districts, with several minor subtractions and some key additions on the edges of some districts. Built form in these locations varies dependent on nearby transportation access and type, prevailing development patterns, and desired job density – resulting typically in the application of the ‘Corridor 6’, ‘Transit 10’, and ‘Production’ built form categories.

### LINDEN HILLS SMALL AREA PLAN

**Plan Background**
The Linden Hills Neighborhood Council and the Community Development and Economic Development Department of the City of Minneapolis collaborated on the development of a small area plan for a portion of Linden Hills. A consulting team led by Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH), Inc. led a broadly inclusive community engagement process to develop the small area plan, which creates a shared long-range vision for portions of Linden Hills.

**Future Land Use and Built Form**
The land use recommendations from the Linden Hills Small Area Plan are kept almost entirely intact in Minneapolis 2040. The extent of commercial mixed use is the same, with the exception of the addition of properties at 44th Street and Upton Avenue to the 43rd Street and Upton Avenue commercial area. Urban Neighborhood is applied to all other property within the small area plan’s influence. Built form recommendations from the small area plan are acknowledged, implemented, and expanded upon in a manner consistent with citywide conventions for Minneapolis 2040. Upton Avenue, France Avenue, Sheridan Avenue, and 44th Street all carry transit service which supports application of a mix of the ‘Corridor 4’, ‘Corridor 3’, and ‘Interior 2’ built form categories. These categories transition into the ‘Interior 1’ category typically within one half block of the corridors.

### LORING PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN

**Plan Background**
Residents for a Loring Park Community (CPLC) conducted a planning process to determine the direction of the Loring Park neighborhood for the next 20 years. This small area plan creates a shared vision for the future of the neighborhood. The Loring Park Neighborhood Master Plan will help guide city policy and intervention in this area for years to come.

**Future Land Use and Built Form**
Land use recommendations from the master plan are reflected in Minneapolis 2040 primarily through the application of the ‘Public, Office, and Institutional’ and ‘Neighborhood Office and Services’ categories; the latter being applied on the hill where flexibility of use within residential structures is a goal of the master plan. Commercial uses are still encouraged on the Loring Park frontages through use of the ‘Corridor Mixed Use’ category. Both Hennepin and Nicollet Avenues are identified as ‘Goods and Services Corridors’ to encourage continued operation as commercial districts, while some properties fronting those streets also carry the ‘Destination Mixed Use’ category which requires street level commercial retail.

The built form recommendations from the master plan include categories that allow up to four stories, up to six stories, and up to ten stories. The Minneapolis 2040

<!-- page 324 -->
map largely retains these recommendations while also reflecting existing built form, and the opportunity afforded to locations near the downtown office core. The ‘Corridor 4’ category is applied on much of the hill, while ‘Corridor 6’, ‘Transit 10’, and ‘Transit 20’ are applied to the bulk of the neighborhood centered on Nicollet Avenue. Portions of Hennepin Avenue receive the ‘Transit 10’ category, including properties in the Harmon Historic District.

## LOWRY AVENUE NE CORRIDOR PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

### Plan Background
Throughout 2014 and 2015, Hennepin County’s Lowry Avenue Community Works worked in partnership with the City of Minneapolis and others on a new plan for the Lowry Avenue NE corridor east of the Mississippi River. The plan proposes sidewalk and road improvements for walkers, bicyclists, transit users and drivers, and explores redevelopment options that would support business and housing growth in the area. The plan is now complete. The plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the July 6, 2015, meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting on August 7, 2015 and by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on October 20, 2015.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The corridor plan focuses on infrastructure improvements needed along Lowry Avenue. While it touches on land use issues through an analysis of redevelopment concepts along the corridor, there are no parcel specific recommendations for land use or built form. Lowry Avenue is guided as a ‘Goods and Services Corridor’ in Minneapolis 2040 and supports a range of commercial activity with the application of varying commercial mixed use land uses. Built form along the corridor is a combination of ‘Corridor 6’, ‘Corridor 4’, ‘Interior 3’, and ‘Interior 2’, which is consistent with how similar corridors are treated throughout the city. Additional development intensity is supported nearer Central Avenue. Lowry Avenue serves as the dividing line between parts of the city receiving the ‘Interior 2’ or ‘Interior 1’ categories on the interior of neighborhoods.

## LOWRY AVENUE STRATEGIC PLAN

### Plan Background
The Lowry Avenue Strategic Plan: An Update to the Lowry Avenue Corridor Plan is a small area plan that resulted from the initiative of the five neighborhoods that border on Lowry Avenue in north Minneapolis—the Cleveland, Folwell, Hawthorne, Jordan and McKinley neighborhoods. The plan was funded by neighborhood NRP monies and a City of Minneapolis Great Streets grant. It was created under the project management of City of Minneapolis staff, with consultant services provided by Cuningham Group, Biko Associates, and Donjek.

The plan builds on an earlier plan, the 2002 Lowry Avenue Corridor Plan, in two ways. It sharpens the vision for Lowry Avenue established in the 2002 plan. And it offers a set of implementation strategies to further the goals of the plan in areas such as fostering new development and strengthening business districts.

The plan was completed following a multifaceted community and stakeholder engagement process. It was adopted by the Minneapolis City Council on December 17, 2010.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The land use map in the strategic plan takes the approach of limiting commercial opportunity to several key nodes as an economic development strategy that would result in the concentration of future commercial development. Minneapolis 2040 reverses this approach, opening up more land to commercial development with the goal of increasing access to commercial goods and services in the areas. To that end, Lowry Avenue is guided with a variety of commercial mixed use future land use categories. The

<!-- page 325 -->
Small Area Plans

***

avenue is also identified as a ‘Goods and Services Corridor’ which further emphasizes the importance of the street as a location for commercial expansion. The Minneapolis 2040 future built form map guides Lowry Avenue for the ‘Corridor 4’ and ‘Interior 2’ categories, with the extent of the ‘Corridor 4’ designation largely matching the extent of the residential medium density designation from the strategic plan. The ‘Interior 2’ and ‘Interior 1’ categories are applied in areas that are adjacent to but not directly on the corridor.

### LYN-LAKE SMALL AREA PLAN

#### Plan Background
The Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan was adopted on June 26, 2009. The plan, designed with input from residents, businesses, and community leaders throughout the 12 month planning process, is a vision for the business center focusing primarily on Lyndale Avenue between 26th Street and 31st Street and Lake Street between Bryant Avenue South and Blaisdell Avenue South.

#### Future Land Use and Built Form
The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map is largely consistent with the recommendations from the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan. Commercial uses are encouraged along the main corridors, with a concentration of activity near the Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street intersection. One key distinction is the addition of the ‘Destination Mixed Use’ category to the four corners of the Lyndale and Lake intersection, requiring commercial retail frontage in mixed use buildings. The ‘Goods and Services Corridor’ designation along Lyndale and Bryant Avenues south of Lake Street allow for the organic addition of commercial uses that are not contiguous with existing commercial establishments.

The Minneapolis 2040 built form map includes further intensification throughout the Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan study area. Consistent with the way similar transit corridors are treated throughout the city, ‘Corridor 6’ is applied on the Lyndale and Lake frontages with the ‘Interior 3’ category applied on properties not fronting on corridors. South of 31st Street the Lyndale Avenue corridor transitions away from ‘Corridor 6’ to the ‘Corridor 4’ category. The ‘Transit 10’ category is applied on the north side of the Midtown Greenway. A minimum building height of 2 stories is required in the ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Transit 10’ categories. Additional height throughout the study area will be considered through the conditional use permit process.

### MARCY-HOLMES NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN

#### Plan Background
The Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Association completed a process to update the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Master Plan. During the same time period, a parallel planning process was conducted for the Dinkytown business district, coordinated with business district stakeholders. The intent was to provide a unified planning framework for the neighborhood, with some in-depth recommendations specifically for the business district. The Dinkytown Business District Plan is an addendum to the new Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Master Plan. The recommendations from the Dinkytown plan are also incorporated directly into the Marcy-Holmes plan document.

The combined plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the July 14, 2014, meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting on August 15, 2014.

#### Future Land Use and Built Form
The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map largely reflects the recommendations made in the master plan. Commercial mixed use land uses are focused on Central Avenue, Main Street, and in Dinkytown. Additional clusters at 8th Street and 7th Avenue as well as 6th Avenue and University Avenue remain in the future land

<!-- page 326 -->
use map. The majority of the remaining properties in the plan area remain in the ‘Urban Neighborhood’ category, with the exception of properties on the north end of the neighborhood that are guided for ‘Production Mixed Use’. While there is not a parcel specific built form map from the master plan, the Minneapolis 2040 future built form map attempts to emulate the densities recommended on the master plan’s land use map. The ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Transit 15’ categories are implemented nearer the University of Minnesota, while the remainders of the 4th and University corridors receive the ‘Corridor 4’ category. Properties nearer Central Avenue receive a mix of the ‘Transit 10’ and ‘Transit 30’ designations. The interior of the neighborhood is guided for ‘Interior 3’, consistent with the way other neighborhoods in close proximity to downtown are treated.

## MIDTOWN GREENWAY LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

### Plan Background
The Midtown Greenway Land Use and Development Plan sets policy direction for land use and development in the Midtown Greenway corridor for the next 10-20 years, with implications for private development and investment in the public realm. The study boundary generally includes properties within one block of the greenway from the western border of the city east to Hiawatha Avenue. The Plan evaluates the long-term viability of existing land uses along the corridor. It provides guidance for future land uses along the Midtown Greenway, and proposes development guidelines for development intensity and form.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map largely reflects the recommendations made in the Midtown Greenway Land Use and Development Plan, with the exception of areas covered by more recent plans – in particular the areas closest to Hennepin Avenue and Lake Street as well as Lyndale Avenue and Lake Street. Near the future West Lake LRT station commercial future land uses are expanded slightly from what is shown in the development plan, while built form recommendations increase the development intensity allowed on some sites with application of the ‘Transit 10’, ‘Transit 15’, and ‘Transit 30’ categories. As a location with high frequency transit service, other properties receive the ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Interior 3’ districts.

Properties along the greenway between Knox Avenue and Blaisdell Avenue are addressed in summaries for the more recently adopted Uptown Small Area Plan and Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan.

East of Blaisdell the development plan calls for commercial mixed use land uses in what is called the transit oriented development district. The Minneapolis 2040 maps attempt to match these recommendations with use of the ‘Destination Mixed Use’ category at the intersection of Nicollet Avenue and Lake Street, requiring street level retail in future development. The built form map guides the area to the ‘Transit 15’ built form district.

Similarly, the Minneapolis 2040 maps continue to emulate the recommendations from the development plan east of Interstate 35W. The ‘Public, Office, and Institutional’ category is employed north of the greenway at 4th Avenue and Chicago Avenue. In those same locations the ‘Transit 10’ built form category is applied, consistent with the built form recommendations in the development plan.

Most other areas between Interstate 35W and Hiawatha Avenue are guided for ‘Urban Neighborhood’ future land use. Unless fronting along an intersecting north/south transit corridor, properties in this area are typically guided for the ‘Interior 3’ or ‘Corridor 4’ future built form category. Properties nearer to Lake Street receive the ‘Corridor 6’ category. Recommendations for properties nearest the Lake Street LRT station are addressed in the summary for the Hiawatha/Lake Station Area Master Plan.

## Midtown Minneapolis Land Use and

<!-- page 327 -->
## Development Plan

### Plan Background
This report documents a year-long planning and urban design process conducted to prepare a land use and development plan for Midtown Minneapolis. This plan will inform future revisions of The Minneapolis Plan and will be used, like the comprehensive plan, to guide development activities in the project area. The Midtown Minneapolis Land Use and Development Plan study considered the area bordered by Blaisdell and 11th Avenues and the Midtown Greenway and 31st Street in south Minneapolis, and was initiated by the City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Planning Division and three council members representing the 6th, 8th, and 10th Wards. Major public infrastructure improvements are planned for this area; because of the magnitude of the infrastructure improvements and their potential to influence development activities, it was determined that proactive land use planning and urban design analysis was warranted to ensure that future development would meet community-defined goals and objectives.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The Midtown Minneapolis Land Use and Development Plan calls for mixed use development fronting Lake Street from Blaisdell Avenue to 11th Avenue South. The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map retains these recommendations while adding some specificity to the nature of that mixed use. Of particular note is the application of the ‘Destination Mixed Use’ category at Lake Street and Nicollet Avenue and at Lake Street and Chicago Avenue, which will require future development to incorporate retail into the first floor of multi-story buildings. Most remaining property not fronting on Lake Street is guided for ‘Urban Neighborhood’ in the Minneapolis 2040 future land use map.

While the Midtown plan does not have a parcel specific built form map, recommendations about development intensity made in the future land use map are reflected on the Minneapolis 2040 built form map. The greatest development intensity in the plan area occurs at Nicollet and Chicago Avenues, with the application of the ‘Transit 15’ and ‘Transit 10’ categories in those areas respectively. The ‘Corridor 6’ category is applied along Lake Street, as is done with other high frequency transit corridors throughout the city. Built form districts then taper off in intensity farther away from Lake Street with the use of the ‘Interior 3’ and ‘Interior 2’ built form categories.

## NICOLLET ISLAND - EAST BANK SMALL AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
The Nicollet Island-East Bank Small Area Plan’s objective is to define the community’s vision for future development in the Nicollet Island – East Bank area over a 20 year time horizon. This project was initiated in Spring 2013 by the Nicollet Island-East Bank Neighborhood Association Board of Directors with the support of the Northeast Business Association and in coordination with the Community Development and Economic Development Department of the City of Minneapolis. The plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the September 15, 2014, meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting on October 17, 2014.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The small area plan’s recommendations for land use are reflected in the Minneapolis 2040 future land use map through application of the ‘Community Mixed Use’ category, which requires active ground floor uses in multi-story redevelopment. This category is applied throughout the small area plan’s study area. The small area plan does not have parcel specific built form recommendations, instead indicating a general indifference to building height outside of sculpting setbacks for upper floors on taller buildings. To this end, the ‘Transit 30’ category is applied to the study area north of University Avenue. Between University Avenue

<!-- page 328 -->
and Main Street, most properties fall in the ‘Transit 10’ category in acknowledgement of the built form guidance present in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District Guidelines.

## NOKOMIS EAST STATION AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
The Nokomis East Station Area Plan is the City’s vision for the area served by two light rail transit stations: 50th Street/Minnehaha Park and the Veterans Administration Medical Center. It was adopted by the City Council on January 12, 2007. This small area plan serves as a guide for Planning Commission review, zoning changes, capital investment, and housing and commercial redevelopment activities in this part of the city. It is the culmination of extensive community involvement as well as staff and consultant work.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The station area plan has a combined built form and future land use map that guides uses and building intensity on the same map. The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map matches the extent of commercial future land use at 54th Street and Minnehaha Avenue, while expanding commercial opportunities at Hiawatha and Minnehaha Avenue, as well as at the 50th Street LRT station. Remaining properties in the study area are guided for the ‘Urban Neighborhood’ future land use category. The Minneapolis 2040 future built form map attempt to follow the recommendations from the station area plan by fitting the ranges of development intensity found in the plan into the new categories created for Minneapolis 2040. This means an increase in allowable development intensity in some locations. The use of ‘Corridor 6’ along Minnehaha Avenue south of Hiawatha Avenue is an example. Additional properties near the 50th Street station are guided for the ‘Corridor 4’ and ‘Interior 3’ categories, better taking advantage of the access afforded to land in this location.

## NORTH LOOP SMALL AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
The North Loop Small Area Plan is a policy document produced by the City of Minneapolis to guide land use and development in the North Loop neighborhood for the next 20 years. It is officially an update to the Downtown East/ North Loop Master Plan, adopted by the City in 2003, and builds upon the policy direction of The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth, the City’s comprehensive plan. It is meant to articulate a vision for the neighborhood based on existing City policy and input from community stakeholders – both public and private - throughout the planning process. The City, public partners, and community organizations will use the plan to guide their own decision-making processes with incremental changes to realize the full vision. The document, with amendments, received full approval from the Minneapolis City Council on April 16, 2010.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
Future land use recommendations from the North Loop Small Area Plan are largely consistent with the future land use map in Minneapolis 2040, with some minor changes and clarifications. The majority of the study area is guided for ‘Public, Office, and Institutional’ to reflect the eclectic nature of existing and planned land uses in the neighborhood. For most of the neighborhood, this is a consistent reflection of the guidance in the small area plan. One area where this designation is a change from the small area plan is near the planned Royalston LRT station, previously guided for transitional industrial. With more certainty surrounding the future of this location, the new category was applied. The small area plan designated Washington Avenue and Glenwood Avenue as commercial corridors. Minneapolis 2040 acknowledges this with the application of the ‘Goods and Services Corridor’ designation on each corridor, and with application of commercial mixed use categories on properties fronting these streets.

<!-- page 329 -->
Built form recommendations are also largely reflective of the small area plan. Areas closest to the river are guided for ‘Corridor 6’, areas within the Warehouse Historic District are generally guided for ‘Transit 10’, while much of the remainder of the study area is guided for ‘Transit 30’.

### PHILLIPS WEST MASTER LAND USE PLAN

**Plan Background**
The purpose of the Phillips West Master Land Use Plan is to serve as a guide for investment and future land use changes within the boundaries of the Phillips West neighborhood. This work was initiated by the Phillips West Neighborhood Organization, which contracted with Hay Dobbs to conduct the planning process and produce the plan document. The Minneapolis City Council adopted the plan as city policy on July 17, 2009.

**Future Land Use and Built Form**
Future land use recommendations from the Phillips West Master Land Use Plan are largely consistent with the future land use map in Minneapolis 2040. Properties guided for ‘Public, Office, and Institutional’ uses in Minneapolis 2040 attempt to match what is in the master plan, with some minor changes where existing residential uses are not expected to accommodate future mixed use development. Commercial uses continue to front Lake Street. Most of the remaining properties in the study area are guided for ‘Urban Neighborhood’.

Built form recommendations from the master plan are not parcel specific, or lack specificity in the way Minneapolis 2040 is attempting to achieve. The Midtown Minneapolis and Midtown Greenway plans were heavily relied upon to guide built form in the southern end of the study area, where a combination of ‘Corridor 6’, ‘Corridor 4’, and ‘Transit 10’ is applied. Elsewhere in the neighborhood, application of ‘Interior 3’ is the standard, due to the area’s close proximity to downtown.

### SEWARD LONGFELLOW GREENWAY AREA PLAN

**Plan Background**
The purpose of the Seward and Longfellow Greenway Area Land Use and Pre-Development Study is to suggest policy direction for land use and development along Phase 3 of the Midtown Greenway. The study evaluates the long-term viability and appropriateness of existing land uses along the corridor, includes a land use plan for future uses, and explores particular development concepts for selected opportunity sites. This plan was approved by the City Council on February 9, 2007.

**Future Land Use and Built Form**
While much of the guidance is consistent, there are a handful of changes to the Seward Longfellow area made in the Minneapolis 2040 future land use map. Areas previously guided for General Industrial, are placed in the ‘Production and Processing’ category. Several parcels to the east of the existing employment district are added to this designation, moving them out of the former Transitional Industrial category. Other industrially used properties are placed in the ‘Production Mixed Use’ category, including some formerly guided for residential that continue to be utilized as industrial land. Transition away from industrial use will still be possible in this district. Properties closer to the Lake Street LRT station remain guided for commercial mixed use categories. The majority of the rest of the property in the neighborhood is guided for ‘Urban Neighborhood’.

Built form recommendations from the plan are reflected in Minneapolis 2040 through the use of three categories. ‘Transit 20’ is employed nearest the LRT station, with ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Interior 3’ employed along the Midtown Greenway in a manner that is consistent with the Seward Longfellow Greenway Area Plan.

### SHERIDAN NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL AREA PLAN

<!-- page 330 -->
### Plan Background

The Sheridan Neighborhood Organization (SNO) spent many months planning for and drafting a small area plan for the Sheridan neighborhood. The plan creates a vision for the future of their neighborhood (with specific focus on 13th Avenue and Marshall Street), to be incorporated into the City of Minneapolis’ Comprehensive Plan, and to guide future funding decisions for SNO. The plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the September 15, 2014, meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting on October 17, 2014.

### Future Land Use and Built Form

The future land use map in Minneapolis 2040 largely reflects the future land use recommendations from the small area plan. Commercial uses are concentrated along Marshall Street, Broadway Street, and 13th Avenue NE. Most of the remaining property in the neighborhood is guided for ‘Urban Neighborhood’. The small area plan does not include a parcel specific built form map, rather calling out key sites for medium or high density residential. The Minneapolis 2040 future built form map introduces the ‘Corridor 6’ category to the portion of the small area plan formerly guided as an Activity Center. Furthermore, the Marshall Street, Broadway Street, 2nd Street, and University Avenue corridors receive the ‘Corridor 4’, ‘Interior 3’, and ‘Interior 2’ designations, consistent with the way similar transit corridors are treated throughout the city. The remainder of the neighborhood is guided for the ‘Interior 2’ built form district.

## SOUTH LYNDALE CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN

### Plan Background

The corridor master plan was completed in 2005 and focuses on long-term changes rather than short-term improvements. The Lyndale Avenue corridor is defined as a community corridor in The Minneapolis Plan, the city’s adopted comprehensive plan. It provides housing, commercial goods and services, development opportunities, and major transit connections. Land use and transportation changes have already occurred, and additional change is anticipated. Recent proposals for housing and mixed-use developments have sparked neighborhood opposition, due in part to the lack of a shared vision for how the corridor can evolve. Completion of the South Lyndale Corridor Plan process was the final stage for realizing a community vision.

### Future Land Use and Built Form

The future land use map in Minneapolis 2040 largely reflects the future land use recommendations from the corridor master plan. Commercial uses are concentrated along Lyndale Avenue and TH 121 while most of the remaining property in the area is guided for ‘Urban Neighborhood’. Minneapolis 2040 acknowledges the high demand for commercial retail in this area, and includes the opportunity for infill commercial mixed use development along the entire stretch of Lyndale Avenue. The small area plan does not include a parcel specific built form map, rather calling out key sites for medium or high density residential. The Minneapolis 2040 future built form map introduces the ‘Corridor 6’ category to most of the corridor fronting Lyndale Avenue, with ‘Interior 2’ applied on adjacent property before tapering to ‘Interior 1’ off of the corridor. Nearer the TH 121 right of way the ‘Transit 10’ district is applied to take advantage of potential redevelopment opportunity afforded through the eventual reconfiguration of the roadway.

## ST. ANTHONY EAST NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL AREA PLAN

### Plan Background

The St. Anthony East Neighborhood Association (SAENA) has recently completed a planning process to provide guidance for the future of the neighborhood. The planning process was initiated in mid-2013 and was completed in

<!-- page 331 -->
### Small Area Plans

early 2014. The plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the September 15, 2014, meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting on October 17, 2014.

#### Future Land Use and Built Form
The future land use map in Minneapolis 2040 largely reflects the future land use recommendations from the small area plan. Commercial mixed use categories are concentrated on Broadway Street, with smaller concentrations on Spring Street at Monroe Street and at Central Avenue. Most of the remaining property in the area is guided for ‘Urban Neighborhood’. The small area plan does not include a parcel specific built form map, rather calling out key sites for medium or high density residential. The Minneapolis 2040 future built form map introduces the ‘Corridor 6’ category to properties nearest Central Avenue and ‘Corridor 4’ is applied nearest Broadway Street, with ‘Interior 3’ and ‘Interior 2’ applied on properties adjacent to those corridors.

### STADIUM VILLAGE UNIVERSITY AVENUE STATION AREA PLAN

#### Plan Background
The Stadium Village University Avenue Station Area Plan is the small area plan for the Stadium Village and Prospect Park light rail stations on the Central Corridor line. The planning process was led jointly by the City of Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, and Hennepin County. The plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the July 30, 2012, meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting on August 31, 2012.

#### Future Land Use and Built Form
The future land use map in Minneapolis 2040 largely reflects the future land use recommendations from the station area plan. Commercial mixed use categories are concentrated along University and Washington Avenues. Properties guided for the former Industrial Employment District remain guided long term for industrial and other jobs rich uses through application of the ‘Production Mixed Use’ category. Properties nearest the University of Minnesota are placed in the ‘Public, Office, and Institutional’ category, while remaining property not falling under the aforementioned categories largely are placed in the ‘Urban Neighborhood’ category. The small area plan does not include a parcel specific built form map, rather calling out key sites for medium or high density residential and through use of land use features. The Minneapolis 2040 future built form map takes advantage of the very high accessibility to various amenities in the area by applying a combination of the ‘Transit 10’, ‘Transit 15’, and ‘Transit 30’ categories throughout much of the station areas; transitioning to ‘Corridor 4’ and ‘Interior 2’ at the edges of these locations. Western portions of the study area along University Avenue receive the ‘Corridor 6’ designation.

### 38TH STREET AND CHICAGO AVENUE SMALL AREA / CORRIDOR FRAMEWORK PLAN

#### Plan Background
The purpose of the 38th Street and Chicago Avenue Small Area / Corridor Framework Plan is to support the ongoing improvement and revitalization of the area of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue by proposing specific policies and strategies to guide its evolution.

This work was initiated by area residents, business owners, and other community leaders in early 2004. It has since advanced through several phases of refinement under the direct guidance of residents and neighborhood organizations. This work has been supported, financed, and adopted by the four neighborhood organizations around 38th Street and Chicago Avenue, and by other business and civic organizations in the area.

<!-- page 332 -->
# Small Area Plans

The Powderhorn Park, Bancroft, Bryant, and Central neighborhoods worked with Community Design Group to organize the planning process and draft the plan document. The City Council adopted the plan as City policy on March 21, 2008.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map is largely consistent with the recommendations from the 38th Street and Chicago Avenue Small Area / Corridor Framework Plan. Properties designated for commercial future land use generally match what is in the framework plan, while expansion of those commercial areas along both Chicago Avenue and 38th Street is allowed to improve access to commercial goods and services for residents, employees, and visitors to the area.

The Minneapolis 2040 built form map attempts to reflect the recommendations from the small area plan in a way that is consistent with adopted plan goals and also includes further intensification throughout the study area to match the built form conventions in the new plan. Consistent with the way high frequency transit corridors are treated throughout the city, ‘Corridor 6’ is applied to properties fronting Chicago Avenue with the ‘Interior 3’ and ‘Interior 2’ categories applied on properties not fronting on corridors. Along 38th Street the ‘Corridor 4’ category is applied immediately adjacent to the street while ‘Interior 2’ to properties just off of the corridor. ‘Interior 1’ and ‘Interior 2’ categories are applied to blocks interior to the corridors. Additional height along Chicago Avenue and 38th Street will be considered through the conditional use permit process.

## THE COMO BLUEPRINT: A SMALL AREA PLAN FOR THE COMO NEIGHBORHOOD OF MINNEAPOLIS

### Plan Background
The Southeast Como Improvement Association (SECIA) spent many months planning for and drafting a small area plan for the Southeast Como neighborhood. The plan creates a vision for the future of their neighborhood, to be incorporated into the City of Minneapolis’ Comprehensive Plan, and to guide future decisions for SECIA. The plan is now complete. The plan was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission at the May 23, 2016, meeting, and approved by the Minneapolis City Council at the regular meeting on July 1, 2016.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The future land use map in Minneapolis 2040 largely reflects the future land use recommendations from the station area plan. The ‘Goods and Service Corridor’ designation is applied to Como and Hennepin Avenues, encouraging the development of mixed use commercial activity. Most other properties in the neighborhood are placed in the ‘Production and Processing’ and ‘Urban Neighborhood’ categories. The small area plan does not include a parcel specific built form map, rather calling out key sites for medium or high density residential. Hennepin and Como Avenues receive the ‘Corridor 4’ and ‘Interior 2’ categories, consistent with how other similar transit corridors are treated throughout the city. Most properties off of those corridors are then guided for ‘Interior 2’. Properties within the ‘Production and Processing’ future land use category are largely guided for the ‘Production’ built form district.

## UPTOWN SMALL AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
The purpose of the Uptown Small Area Plan is to outline a vision for the future of the Uptown area and provide land use policy guidance. This plan was approved by the City Council on February 1, 2008 after a community planning process that spanned almost two years.

<!-- page 333 -->
**Future Land Use and Built Form**
The Minneapolis 2040 future land use map is largely consistent with the recommendations from the Uptown Small Area Plan. Commercial uses are encouraged along the corridors, with a concentration of activity near the Hennepin Avenue, Lake Street, and Lagoon Avenue intersections. One key distinction is the addition of the ‘Destination Mixed Use’ category to the core of the Uptown area, requiring commercial retail frontage in mixed use buildings. Language from the Uptown Small Area Plan about the flexible use of residential structures south of 31st Street for commercial uses is reflected in the Minneapolis 2040 map with the application of the ‘Neighborhood Mixed Use’ category.

The Minneapolis 2040 built form map includes further intensification throughout the Uptown Small Area Plan study area. Consistent with the way high frequency transit corridors are treated throughout the city, ‘Corridor 6’ is applied on the Hennepin, Lake, and Lagoon frontages with the ‘Interior 3’ category applied on properties not fronting on corridors. South of 31st Street the Hennepin Avenue corridor transitions away from ‘Corridor 6’ to the ‘Corridor 4’ category. The ‘Transit 10’ category is applied in the core of the commercial area of Uptown and on the north side of the Midtown Greenway. A minimum building height of 2 stories is required in the ‘Corridor 6’ and ‘Transit 10’ categories. Additional height throughout the study area will be considered through the conditional use permit process.

### VAN WHITE MEMORIAL BOULEVARD STATION AREA PLAN

**Plan Background**
The Van White Memorial Boulevard Station Area Plan is a station area plan prepared for the Metro Blue Line Extension LRT station located at Van White Memorial Boulevard and Olson Memorial Highway. This plan was created by CPED staff in conjunction with Public Works. The Bottineau Project office provided technical support in regard to the LRT line design and engineering. On December 8, 2017, the Minneapolis City Council adopted the Van White Memorial Boulevard Station Area Plan.

**Future Land Use and Built Form**
The future land use map in Minneapolis 2040 largely reflects the future land use recommendations from the station area plan. Commercial mixed use categories are present at the Van White Station along Olson Memorial Highway as well as along Glenwood Avenue. At the intersection of Van White Memorial Boulevard with both of those cross streets, the ‘Destination Mixed Use’ category is applied to require street level commercial retail. Areas identified as residential flex space in the station area plan are placed in the ‘Production Mixed Use Category’. The majority of remaining properties in the study area not covered by the above categories are placed in the ‘Urban Neighborhood’ designation. Built form guidance in Minneapolis 2040 is also closely aligned with the development intensity recommended in the station area plan. Properties guided in the station area plan for ‘Transit Scale’, ‘Urban Scale’, and ‘Neighborhood Scale’ generally receive the ‘Transit 15’, ‘Corridor 6’, and ‘Corridor 4’ designations respectively in the Minneapolis 2040 future built form map. Exceptions include areas off of corridors farther from the station that are guided for ‘Interior 2’.

### WEST BROADWAY ALIVE! PLAN

**Plan Background**
West Broadway has historically been the most significant commercial and cultural destination in north Minneapolis. Although much reduced from its boom years, it remains the main street of north Minneapolis. Planning for West Broadway was initiated in 2006 in order to lay the groundwork for the revitalization of West Broadway as a cherished community place, and the activated center of commercial activity in north Minneapolis. At the end of a two year process, a plan was produced that was titled “West Broadway Alive: A Revitalization Plan for

<!-- page 334 -->
North Minneapolis’s Main Street. The plan guides future development and public realm improvements, and offers a roadmap for revitalization by naming near- and long-term actions to be undertaken around which the energy and resources of stakeholders can be focused.

The first community meeting in the development of the West Broadway Alive plan took place on August 24, 2006. The fifth and final took place on July 17, 2007. Average attendance at community meetings was around 140. Numerous other forms of community engagement took place during the same period. The West Broadway Alive plan was endorsed by all of the neighborhoods that border on West Broadway, as well as the West Broadway Coalition. It now represents official City policy as it was formally adopted by the City Council on Friday, March 21, 2008.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
The future land use map in Minneapolis 2040 is generally consistent with the future land use recommendations from West Broadway Alive. Commercial mixed use categories are applied in an area west of Interstate 94, with some additional expansion of allowed commercial west of the Minneapolis Public Schools headquarters. Commercial mixed use categories are also applied in an area focused on the Penn Avenue and West Broadway Avenue intersection - again consistent with the small area plan recommendations. The addition of the ‘Destination Mixed Use’ category directly at the intersection will require street level commercial retail. Most of the remaining properties in the study area are placed in the ‘Urban Neighborhood’ designation. Built form guidance in Minneapolis 2040 is applied on West Broadway in a manner consistent with other high frequency transit routes throughout the city – with the ‘Corridor 6’ category fronting directly on the street and the ‘Interior 3’ category serving as a transition to properties farther off of the corridor. Properties nearer Interstate 94, primarily on larger parcels, are guided for the ‘Transit 10’ category to take advantage of the increased access to amenities afforded by the location.

## LOGAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
In 2016 the Logan Park neighborhood completed a small area plan. The planning process for this neighborhood was initiated by the Logan Park Neighborhood Association in 2015, and the most recent draft of the plan was completed in May 2016. The plan was received and filed by the Zoning and Planning Committee of the City Council on February 16, 2017.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
Land use recommendations from the small area plan are reflected in Minneapolis 2040 primarily through the application of the ‘Production Mixed Use’, ‘Urban Neighborhood’, and several commercial mixed use future land use designations. Property adjacent to rail corridors largely falls under the ‘Production Mixed Use’ category which allows for a wide range of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Commercial categories are concentrated along Broadway Street and Central Avenue, while remaining property in the neighborhood is almost all in the ‘Urban Neighborhood’ category.

The built form recommendations in Minneapolis 2040 generally follow the same pattern of application found in the small area plan. Intensity of built form does not match precisely however, as Central Avenue receives the ‘Corridor 6’ category, consistent with the way other high frequency transit corridors are treated throughout the city. Washington and Broadway Streets receive the ‘Corridor 4’, while the ‘Interior 2’ category is applied to most of the remaining property within the influence area of the plan.

<!-- page 335 -->
# ST. ANTHONY WEST NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL AREA PLAN

### Plan Background
The Saint Anthony West Neighborhood Association (STAWNO) developed a small area plan that was approved by the STAWNO board in December 2015. The plan was reviewed by City staff and brought to the City’s Zoning and Planning Committee as an informational item in the first quarter of 2017.

### Future Land Use and Built Form
Land use recommendations from the small area plan are reflected in Minneapolis 2040 primarily through the application of the ‘Production Mixed Use’, ‘Urban Neighborhood’, and several commercial mixed use future land use designations. Property adjacent to the river largely falls under the ‘Production Mixed Use’ category which allows for a wide range of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Commercial categories are concentrated along Broadway Street and Central Avenue, with smaller pockets of commercial property along Marshall Street and University Avenue.

The built form recommendations in Minneapolis 2040 attempt to interpret and build upon the suggestions from the small area plan; which, due to lack of a built form map are communicated through the small area plan’s future land use map. Marshall Street, University Avenue, and 2nd Street are all treated in a similar manner, with the application of the ‘Corridor 4’ category directly fronting those streets and ‘Interior 3’ and ‘Interior 2’ applied to the back of those blocks. The ‘Corridor 6’ category is applied to properties nearest Broadway Street and Marshall to coincide with the concentration of commercial mixed use activity that is envisioned for the location.

<!-- page 336 -->
# Appendix A

Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan

<!-- page 337 -->
# Table of Contents

## List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

### Chapters
Chapter 1 - Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
Chapter 2 - Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
Chapter 3 - Primary Conservation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . A-23
Chapter 4 - Public River Corridor Views . . . . . . . . . . . . A-49
Chapter 5 - Restoration Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-69
Chapter 6 - Open Space and Recreational Facilities. . A-74
Chapter 7 - Transportation and Public Utilities . . . . . . A-81
Chapter 8 - Surface Water and Water Oriented Uses . A-98
Chapter 9 - Key Issues and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . A-98
Chapter 10 – Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-100
Chapter 11 – Implementation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-108

## Attachment A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

## Attachment B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

<!-- page 338 -->
# List of Figures

### Figure 1-1: MRCCA Boundary in Minneapolis.

### Figure 2-1: Upper River MRCCA Districts.

### Figure 2-2: Central River MRCCA Districts.

### Figure 2-3: Lower Gorge MRCCA Districts.

### Figure 2-4: General MRCCA District Height and Setback Requirements.

### Figure 2-5: Upper River - Minneapolis Built Form Guidance over MRCCA Districts.

### Figure 2-6: Central River - Minneapolis Built Form Guidance over MRCCA Districts.

### Figure 2-7: Lower Gorge - Minneapolis Built Form Guidance over MRCCA Districts.

### Figure 3-1: Shore Impact Zone.

### Figure 3-2: Upper River – Shore Impact Zone.

### Figure 3-3: Central River – Shore Impact Zone.

### Figure 3-4: Lower Gorge – Shore Impact Zone.

### Figure 3-5: Upper River – Wetlands and Floodplain.

### Figure 3-6: Central River – Wetlands and Floodplain.

### Figure 3-7: Lower Gorge – Wetlands and Floodplain.

### Figure 3-9: Upper River – Natural Drainage Ways.

### Figure 3-10: Central River – Natural Drainage Ways.

### Figure 3-11: Lower Gorge – Natural Drainage Ways.

### Figure 3-12: Bluffs and Bluff Impact Zones.

### Figure 3-13: Upper River – Bluff Impact Zone.

### Figure 3-14: Central River – Bluff Impact Zone.

### Figure 3-15: Lower Gorge – Bluff Impact Zone.

### Figure 3-16: Upper River – Native Plant Communities and Significant Existing Vegetative Stands.

### Figure 3-17: Central River – Native Plant Communities and Significant Existing Vegetative Stands.

### Figure 3-18: Lower Gorge – Native Plant Communities and Significant Existing Vegetative Stands.

### Figure 3-19: Upper River - Historic Districts and Landmarks.

### Figure 3-20: Central River – Historic Districts and Landmarks.

### Figure 3-21: Lower Gorge – Historic Districts and Landmarks.

### Figure 3-22: Historic Landslides

### Figure 4-1: Upper River – Public River Corridor Views.

### Figure 4-2: Central River – Public River Corridor Views.

<!-- page 339 -->
### Figure 4-3: Lower Gorge – Public River Corridor Views.

### Figure 4-4: MRCCA Public River Corridor Views.

### Figure 5-1: Upper River – Restoration Priorities.

### Figure 5-2: Central River – Restoration Priorities.

### Figure 5-3: Lower Gorge – Restoration Priorities.

### Figure 6-1: Upper River – Existing Open Space and Recreational Facilities.

### Figure 6-2: Central River – Existing Open Space and Recreational Facilities.

### Figure 6-3: Lower Gorge –Existing Open Space and Recreational Facilities.

### Figure 6-4: Above the Falls Regional Park Master Plan Park Boundary.

### Figure 6-5: Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park Park Boundary.

### Figure 7-1: Upper River - Existing Interstate, Roads, and Streets.

### Figure 7-2: Central River - Existing Interstate, Roads, and Streets.

### Figure 7-3: Lower Gorge- Existing Interstate, Roads, and Streets.

### Figure 7-4: Upper River- Future Planned Roadways.

### Figure 7-5: Upper River - Exisiting and Planned Bike Facilities.

### Figure 7-6: Central River – Existing and Planned Bike Facilities.

### Figure 7-7: Lower Gorge – Existing and Planned Bike Facilities.

### Figure 7-8: Upper River- Existing and Planned Transit Facilities.

### Figure 7-9: Central River- Existing and Planned Transit Facilities.

### Figure 7-10: Lower Gorge- Existing and Planned Transit Facilities.

### Figure 7-11: Upper River - Existing Utilities.

### Figure 7-12: Central River - Existing Utilities.

### Figure 7-13: Upper River - Minneapolis 2040 Production and Distribution Guided Land.

### Figure 7-14: Central River - Minneapolis 2040 Production and Distribution Guided Land.

### Figure 9-1: Upper Harbor Terminal viewed from the North.

<!-- page 340 -->
# Chapter 1 - Introduction

### CORRIDOR LOCATION AND HISTORY
The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) extends 72-miles through the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, from the townships of Dayton and Ramsey in Hennepin and Anoka counties downstream to just south of Hastings in Dakota County. Governor Wendell Anderson designated the MRCCA in 1976 by Executive Order 130. It was renewed by Governor Al Quie in 1979 by Executive Order 79-19. See Figure 1-1 for the MRCCA boundaries within the City of Minneapolis.

<<FIGURE>>

The MRCCA contains many significant natural and cultural resources, including: scenic views, water, navigational capabilities, geology and soils, vegetation, minerals, flora and fauna, cultural and historic resources and land and water based recreational resources. The MRCCA is home to a full range of residential neighborhoods and parks, as well as river-related commerce, industry, and transportation. Though the river corridor has been extensively developed, many intact and remnant natural areas remain, including bluffs, islands, floodplains, wetlands, riparian zones, and native aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna.

In 1988, Congress (Public Law 100-696) established the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the National Park Service to: (1) protect, preserve, and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities, (2) encourage coordination of federal, state, and local programs, and (3) provide a management framework to assist the State of Minnesota and units of local government in the development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and to ensure orderly public and private development in the area. The MNRRA shares the same boundaries as the MRCCA. In 1995, a Final Comprehensive Management Plan for the MNRRA was approved by the Secretary of the Interior. This plan lays out a policy-level framework for management of the river corridor. It also determined that the National Park Service would not acquire significant land holdings or establish land use regulations for the MNRRA, but would instead rely on state and local administration of Executive Order 79-19 to protect the resources.

The MRCCA is governed by special land planning requirements and land development regulations. These regulations, which are implemented through local MRCCA plans and ordinances, protect and preserve the natural, scenic, recreational, and transportation resources of this section of the Mississippi River. In response to residents and interest groups raising concerns around the adequacy of the MRCCA regulations, the Legislature directed the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

<!-- page 341 -->
to establish rules for the MRCCA in 2009 and 2013. Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6106, became effective on January 4, 2017, and replace Executive Order 79-19, which previously governed land use in the MRCCA. They provide the land planning and regulatory framework that protects the MRCCA's resources.

### PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS
Public input was gathered through the community engagement for the city's comprehensive plan update (Minneapolis 2040) during 2016 and 2017. This engagement covered many topics relevant to the MRCCA plan including land use, open space, and environmental issues. In addition, many policy recommendations are from adopted small area plans, which all had significant community engagement. Finally, the document was included with the comprehensive plan update document during the public review and comment period in March of 2018.

### IMPLEMENTING THE 2006 MRCCA PLAN
Several major projects and activities have occurred in the MRCCA that implemented the goals and policies of the 2006 MRCCA plan including, but not limited to:

* Between 2006 and the present, several developments were constructed in the MRCCA, all of which were reviewed for compliance with the MRCCA plan.
* Between 2006 and the present, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) acquired several parcels, implemented park and trail improvements, and undertook various planning processes. These include, but are not limited to, park and trail improvements on the west bank from Plymouth Avenue North to 22nd Avenue North, pollution remediation at Gluek Park, development of Water Power Park, construction of Sheridan Memorial Park, acquisition and preliminary construction of Scherer Park and Hall's Island, acquisition of several parcels on the upper river, and planning for the future Water Works Park.
* In 2008, the I-35W Bridge was replaced after the previous bridge collapsed.
* In 2009, the Xcel Riverside Plant was converted from coal to natural gas reducing emissions in the area and removing the storage of coal at the site.
* In 2012, the Lowry Avenue Bridge, which includes new overlooks and adjacent improvements, was completed.
* In 2012, the Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization offices, which includes a stormwater park and learning center, opened on the banks of the river.
* In 2012, the St. Anthony Falls Historic District Guidelines were updated to protect the integrity and character of the district.
* In 2014, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act was passed closing the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock to navigation in June of 2015. Because of this closure there is no more commercial barge traffic on the Mississippi in Minneapolis. This allows for the Upper Harbor Terminal to convert from heavy industry to mixed-use and park land (planning process underway).
* In 2016, the C.A. Smith Lumber District was established on the west bank in the Camden Neighborhood to protect historic properties related to the lumber industry.

### PLAN PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this document is implement Minnesota Rules Chapter 6106 (See Appendix A) and to ensure that the City's land use and regulatory framework protects the MRCCA's resources. It is guided by existing plans and ordinances, but it is not intended to be an exhaustive study of all land use and park planning documents, regulations (such as erosion control or stormwater management ordinances), historic district guidelines, or the various river-related projects of all the public agencies working on the river. Activities in the Critical Area should consult relevant adopted plans and ordinances for additional information and requirements. In the case of overlap of plans/policies the most protective of the Critical Area will prevail.

This document generally does not address the holdings of the University of Minnesota as the University will prepare its own Critical Area Plan. However, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) is subject to all City of Minneapolis land use policies and regulations and this

<!-- page 342 -->
plan. As a large land owner in the MRCCA, the MPRB will play a significant role in implementing the goals of this plan.

Local governments must submit their updated MRCCA plans to the Metropolitan Council and the DNR at the same time that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update is due to the Metropolitan Council. Once a local MRCCA plan update has been approved, the DNR will notify each local government to update their MRCCA zoning ordinance. Once notified, each local government will have 12 months to update their zoning ordinances. The DNR anticipates that it will notify all affected local governments to update their zoning ordinances between 2019 and 2021 and at that time the City will update its zoning ordinance related to the MRCCA.

### GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
This document organizes the geographic area of the corridor into three general areas: Upper River, Central River, and Lower Gorge. These are not exact geographic or regulatory boundaries, but are designed to make the information presented easier to understand. Where there are maps, they reflect these generalized geographic areas.

#### Upper River
The upper river area includes the corridor from the north City limits south to the area around the Plymouth Avenue Bridge. At the north end of the corridor, on the west bank, is the North Mississippi Regional Park. In Minneapolis, it extends from 53rd Avenue North (the city limits) south to the Soo Line Railroad Bridge (just south of the Camden Bridge). In this area, the river and shores are broad and flat with second-generation vegetation growing wildly along the banks. There are also mature woods. Many birds, small mammals, and deer inhabit this woodland. The MPRB has restored the river bank along the west bank from north of Broadway south to Plymouth Avenue and other areas in recent years.

Shingle Creek enters the river near the Camden Bridge. The Shingle Creek waterfall, while just outside the boundary of the MRCCA, is located just west of Lyndale Avenue North in Webber Park. This amenity was created during the construction of I-94 through the area. The project also created paths beside the creek under the freeway and enabled the uninterrupted connection of pathways along Shingle Creek to the park, river trails, and beyond.[^p342-1]

On the east side of the river the northern city limits start at 37th Avenue NE (roughly at the same location as 44th Avenue North in North Minneapolis). The area north of the Minneapolis City limits and opposite North Mississippi River Regional Park is the location of the Minneapolis Public Works water treatment and distribution facility in the City of Fridley.

From the Soo Line Railroad Bridge south to the Plymouth Avenue Bridge, only a few vestiges of the original natural features remain. Even the naturally low slopes have been re-contoured in many locations to accommodate shoreline development; only minor bluffs exist above the falls. Development is largely industrial and commercial, built near the water in many cases with fill and retaining walls. Although vegetation is minimal, it helps screen many uses unrelated to the river. River edge parks, where present, provide naturalistic relief along a part of the river. Along the east bank, there are stands of trees along St. Anthony Parkway and in the Marshall Terrace, Edgewater, and Gluek Parks. A new park has been established at the former Scherer Lumber site just north of and adjacent to Plymouth Avenue on the east side of the river. Remnant trees are present along the shoreline in many other locations where urban development has cleared the rest of the site.

Several small islands are untouched except for the flooding and scouring action of the river. A heron rookery once occupied an island just downstream from the visitor center at the North Mississippi River Regional Park, but it was devastated by a tornado that also hit north Minneapolis in May of 2011. The surviving herons moved downstream to other islands near Marshall Terrace Park while others

[^p342-1]: https://www.minneapolisparks.org/parks__destinations/parks__lakes/north_mississippi_regional_park/#group_3_17931

<!-- page 343 -->
moved upstream to an existing rookery at Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park. The MPRB is currently recreating Hall's Island adjacent to the former Scherer Lumber site. This will restore the channel between the island and the shoreline that was filled in 1966. Restoration of the channel and island is currently underway and is expected to be completed in the summer of 2018.

### Central River
The central river area is generally between the Plymouth and Franklin Avenue Bridges. From Plymouth Avenue to the 10th Avenue Bridge, linear parks have created an attractive wooded stream valley. The river edge includes natural woods, manicured parks, hard plazas, rocky bluffs, and man-made structures. St. Anthony Falls is the dominant natural and visual feature here (other than the river itself) and is a major tourist and resident attraction. The steep bluff line begins to rise below the falls. Bassett Creek enters the river just downstream of the Plymouth Avenue Bridge. Park improvements at Boom Island and the mouth of Bassett Creek have enhanced the natural setting near Plymouth Avenue.

The central river area is a visually interesting and varied segment of the corridor. This area hums with activity and dramatic views are available in every direction. The former mills, the arching bridges, the river cascading over dam aprons, the transmission line towers, the high-rise housing, the smoke stacks of the power plants, and the locks all contribute to the dramatic visual setting. The urban plazas, overlooks, promenades, and bridges provide many vantage points. Downtown and the Main Street development provide an active and varied backdrop. In contrast, areas like the Father Hennepin Bluffs and Nicollet Island’s east channel provide secluded, wildly vegetated retreats. The central river area is also home to the University of Minnesota Campus.

St. Anthony Falls is the birthplace of Minneapolis and is of primary importance to the City's history and its future. St. Anthony Falls has cultural and spiritual significance to the Dakota. As the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River (now altered), St. Anthony Falls provided the power source that nurtured the growth of the City of Minneapolis. St. Anthony Falls is now the core of the City's central riverfront redevelopment efforts to enable people to live nearby and to enjoy the vitality of the urban setting and its natural resources. St. Anthony Falls is the center of a 150-acre regional park and is a contributing resource in the state-designated St. Anthony Falls Heritage District. It lies between a national engineering landmark (James J. Hill’s Stone Arch Bridge) and the site of the first public bridge across the Mississippi River. St. Anthony Falls was a major tourist attraction in the 1850s, and both state and local governments have invested heavily in making the area a major attraction again. It is also adjacent to the last lock constructed on the Mississippi at the former head of navigation for the river. St. Anthony Falls has cultural, historic, economic, scenic, and recreational significance to the nation, the state, the region, and the City, and should be treated with the utmost respect. Accordingly, the City will continue to participate on the St. Anthony Falls Heritage Board as established by the State legislature in 1988.

### Lower Gorge
The Mississippi River Gorge is the only gorge on the entire length of the Mississippi River and was created by the retreating St. Anthony Falls over a period of 10,000 years. It runs approximately eight miles from Saint Anthony Falls in downtown Minneapolis to the Minnesota River confluence in Mendota, Minnesota (the lower gorge geographic area for the maps in this plan is generally between the Franklin Avenue Bridge and the southern city limits). Historically this area had an eight mile stretch of rapids, but for approximately the last century it has been impounded by locks and two dams that also produce hydropower.

The lower gorge is the least-changed section of the river, with limestone bluffs, natural springs, falls, oak savanna, and hardwood forests. Its steep, heavily wooded bluffs retain much of their original character. In fact, from the water it is difficult in some places to recognize that there is a major city just beyond view. It is an area of exceptional scenic beauty that is unique in the heart of the city. It has

<!-- page 344 -->
high-quality native vegetation and restored areas. It is an area of significant wildlife habitat and is a major migratory corridor for birds.

The West River Parkway runs along the river down to Minnehaha Park, and from there, a bicycle and pedestrian path extends along and below the bluff to Historic Fort Snelling State Park. Bohemian Flats, East River Flats, and Riverside Park are areas that provide easy access to the gorge. In other areas, access to the water is more difficult, but people have worn paths down the slopes. The area offers opportunities for hiking, birdwatching, canoeing and rowing, and photography. In the autumn the area can provide spectacular viewing as trees change colors.

In the Lower Gorge the prominent visual feature should be trees and bluffs. The district should continue to be managed to preserve and enhance those natural scenic qualities. Because a significant portion of the gorge is located in St. Paul, continued coordination between the cities and other relevant agencies is important for the management of the gorge.

<!-- page 345 -->
# Chapter 2 - Districts

### CORRIDOR LOCATION AND HISTORY
Executive Order 79-19 originally established four land use districts based on generalized land use patterns and natural resources within the corridor (Rural Open Space, Urban Open Space, Urban Developed, and Urban Diversified). Over time, these four districts became less consistent with actual development within their boundaries. Therefore, the Legislature directed the DNR to establish new districts within the MRCCA that considered the protection of public recreational and interpretive resources; drinking water supply functions of the Mississippi River; the protection of resources identified in the MNRRA plan and local comprehensive plans; management of the corridor consistent with natural characteristics, existing development and the potential for new development; and protection of scenic, geologic and ecological resources.[^p345-1]

After receiving input from work groups, local governments, and other interests, six districts were created through the rulemaking process. The City of Minneapolis participated in the rulemaking process to facilitate the rules conformance with adopted City land use policy as well as advancing the goals of the MRCCA. The MRCCA rules established the following districts:

* Rural and Open Space (CA-ROS)
* River Neighborhood (CA-RN)
* River Towns and Crossings (CA-RTC)
* Separated from River (CA-SR)
* Urban Mixed (CA-UM)
* Urban Core (CA-UC)

The intent and level of protection for each of the six districts is based on the natural resource values within the district, with the greatest levels of protection in those areas that abut the river and still retain natural features. Greater flexibility is provided in those districts that contain areas with more limited resource values, areas that are separated from the river, and fully developed areas of the two major cities – downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. This array of districts is intended to more accurately reflects the different land uses existing within the MRCCA, current development patterns, and proposed future development.[^p345-2]

All six districts are geographically present in Minneapolis. The following section provides a description of each district and its purpose as provided by State of Minnesota Administrative Rules MR 6106.001. See Figures 2-1 through 2-3 for maps of actual district locations and boundaries.

#### Rural and Open Space District (CA-ROS)
*Description:* The rural and open space district (CA-ROS) is characterized by rural and low-density development patterns and land uses, and includes land that is riparian or visible from the river, as well as large, undeveloped tracts of high ecological and scenic value, floodplain, and undeveloped islands. Many primary conservation areas exist in the district.

*Purpose:* The CA-ROS district must be managed to sustain and restore the rural and natural character of the corridor and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas.

#### River Neighborhood District (CA-RN)
*Description:* The river neighborhood district (CA-RN) is characterized by primarily residential neighborhoods that are riparian or readily visible from the river or that abut riparian parkland. The district includes parks and open space, limited commercial development, marinas, and related land uses.

*Purpose:* The CA-RN district must be managed to maintain the character of the river corridor within the context of

[^p345-1]: Minn. Stat. § 116G.15, subd. 3 (2015).
[^p345-2]: State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources; Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR); December 1, 2015; p 42-43.

<!-- page 346 -->
existing residential and related neighborhood development, and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river and enhancing habitat and shoreline vegetation are priorities in the district.

**River Towns and Crossings District (CA-RTC)**
*Description: The river towns and crossings district (CA-RTC) is characterized by historic downtown areas and limited nodes of intense development at specific river crossings, as well as institutional campuses that predate designation of the MRCCA and that include taller buildings.*

*Purpose: The CA-RTC district must be managed in a manner that allows continued growth and redevelopment in historic downtowns and more intensive redevelopment in limited areas at river crossings to accommodate compact walkable development patterns and connections to the river. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river, providing public access to and public views of the river, and restoring natural vegetation in riparian areas and tree canopy are priorities in the district.*

**Separated from River District (CA-SR)**
*Description: The separated from river district (CA-SR) is characterized by its physical and visual distance from the Mississippi River. The district includes land separated from the river by distance, topography, development, or a transportation corridor. The land in this district is not readily visible from the Mississippi River.*

*Purpose: The CA-SR district provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and flow of untreated storm water into the Mississippi River are priorities in the district.*

**Urban Mixed District (CA-UM)**
*Description: The urban mixed district (CA-UM) includes large areas of highly urbanized mixed use that are a part of the urban fabric of the river corridor, including institutional, commercial, industrial, and residential areas and parks and open space.*

*Purpose: The CA-UM district must be managed in a manner that allows for future growth and potential transition of intensely developed areas that does not negatively affect public river corridor views and that protects bluffs and floodplains. Restoring and enhancing bluff and shoreline habitat, minimizing erosion and flow of untreated storm water into the river, and providing public access to and public views of the river are priorities in the district.*

**Urban Core District (CA-UC)**
*Description: The urban core district (CA-UC) includes the urban cores of Minneapolis and St. Paul.*

*Purpose: The CA-UC district must be managed with the greatest flexibility to protect commercial, industrial, and other high-intensity urban uses, while minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and flow of untreated storm water into the river. Providing public access to and public views of the river are priorities in the district.*

<!-- page 347 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2-1: UPPER RIVER MRCCA DISTRICTS.**

<!-- page 348 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2-2: CENTRAL RIVER MRCCA DISTRICTS.**

<!-- page 349 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2-3: LOWER GORGE MRCCA DISTRICTS.**

<!-- page 350 -->
### DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS - STRUCTURE HEIGHT

Structures, including accessory structures as defined by local ordinance, must be no taller than the heights specified for each district as required by Minnesota Rules, 6106.0120. B. Height is determined by applicable local government zoning regulations, provided it is measured on the side of the structure facing the Mississippi River. The height requirements do not apply to those structures and facilities identified in part Minnesota Rules 6106.0180 as exempt from these requirements.

#### Rural and Open Space District (CA-ROS)
Structure height must be no taller than 35 feet.

#### River Neighborhood District (CA-RN)
Structure height must be no taller than 35 feet.

#### River Towns and Crossings District (CA-RTC)
Structure height must be no taller than 48 feet, provided that tiering of structures away from the Mississippi River and from blufflines is given priority, with lower structure heights closer to the river and blufflines, and that structure design and placement minimizes interference with public river corridor views. Taller buildings are allowed by conditional use permit, as provided under the standards for conditional use permits for increase in height section of this document, with consideration of the relationship of building height to the mature treeline, where present, and existing surrounding development, as viewed from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore and from public river corridor views.

#### Separated from River District (CA-SR)
Structure height is determined by the local government's underlying zoning requirements, provided the structure height in the underlying zoning is generally consistent with the height of the mature treeline, where present, and existing surrounding development, as viewed from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore.

#### Urban Mixed District (CA-UM)
Structure height must be no taller than 65 feet, provided tiering of structures away from the Mississippi River and from blufflines is given priority, with lower structure heights closer to the river and blufflines, and that structure design and placement minimize interference with public river corridor views. Taller buildings are allowed by conditional use permit, as provided under the standards for conditional use permits for increase in height section of this document.

#### Urban Core District (CA-UC)
Structure height is determined by the local government's underlying zoning requirements, provided tiering of structures away from the Mississippi River and blufflines is given priority, with lower structure heights closer to the river and blufflines, and structure design and placement minimize interference with public river corridor views.

### STRUCTURE TIERING
The purpose of the dimensional requirements (height and setbacks) in the Critical Area districts is to protect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views. The CA-RTC (Rural Towns and Crossings), CA-UM (Urban Mixed), and CA-UC (Urban Core) districts, in addition to their height limits have the provision that “tiering of structures away from the Mississippi River is given priority.”

Historically, before the creation of the new districts, the majority of this area was part of the Urban Diversified District, which had no height requirements beyond those of the underlying zoning districts or the Shoreland Overlay. Therefore, the development pattern, especially in the core of the city is of varying building heights, some very tall. Therefore, a strict literal application of tiering, to create a step pattern up from the river will not always be practical or within the character of an existing major city. Further, in some instances it could actually harm the protection of primary conservation areas and public river corridor views. For example, a short boxy building may block more views at ground level than a taller tower that does not cover an entire building site.

<!-- page 351 -->
In general, structures within the Critical Area should be shorter when located closer to the river with height increasing as distance from the river increases. However, taller buildings can be considered closer to the river when the existing built character is similar, especially in the downtown area, or where measures are taken to provide significant landscaping and buffering of the structure. In addition, buildings should utilize tapered profiles as building height increases to allow views of and from the river and to avoid overly wide buildings that can create a wall along the riverfront significantly blocking views for other structures, development sites, and neighborhoods. Tiering is most appropriate to consider when requests are made for conditional use permits to increase the height of a building beyond the district height limits in the CA-RTC and CA-UM districts.

### STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR INCREASE IN HEIGHT
The CA-RTC and CA-UM Districts allow for increases in height from the Critical Area District height limits by conditional use permit. In addition to the conditional use permit requirements of the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance, Minnesota Rules 6106.0120(D) provides criteria for considering whether to grant a conditional use permit for buildings exceeding the height limits and state they must include:

**1.** assessment of the visual impact of the proposed building on public river corridor views, including views from other communities;

**2.** identification and application of techniques to minimize the perceived bulk of the proposed building, such as:

**a.** placing the long axis of the building perpendicular to the river;
**b.** stepping back of portions of the façade;
**c.** narrowing the profile of upper floors of the building; or
**d.** increasing the setbacks of the building from the Mississippi River or blufflines;

**3.** identification of techniques for preservation of those view corridors identified in the local government’s plan; and

**4.** opportunities for creation or enhancement of public river corridor views.

Minnesota Rules 6106.0080 further requires that in addition to the criteria above and in addition to meeting the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 394.301, 394.303, 462.3595, and 462.3597, a local government’s review of conditional and interim uses must consider potential impacts of the conditional or interim use on primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, and other resources identified in a local government’s plan. In evaluating a request for a variance or conditional or interim use permit, if a local government identifies a potential negative impact to primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, or other resources identified in the local government’s plan, the variance or conditional or interim use permit must require mitigation. Mitigation must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact of the project on primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, and other resources identified in the local government’s plan.

### DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS - STRUCTURE SETBACKS
Structures and impervious surfaces must not be located in the shore impact zone and must meet setback requirement from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River and other waters within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, as specified for each district (note that the CA-SR and CA-UC districts do not require setbacks from the ordinary high water level , but are subject to underlying zoning district setbacks). Also, structures and impervious surfaces must not be located in the bluff impact zone and must meet setback requirements from the bluffline as specified for each district. Minnesota Rules 6106.0180 list structures that are exempt from these requirements.

<!-- page 352 -->
**Rural and Open Space District (CA-ROS)**
*River Setback: 200 feet*
*Bluff Setback: 100 feet*

**River Neighborhood District (CA-RN)**
*River Setback: 100 feet*
*Bluff Setback: 40 feet*

**River Towns and Crossings District (CA-RTC)**
*River Setback: 75 feet*
*Bluff Setback: 40 feet*

**Separated from River District (CA-SR)**
*River Setback: Not applicable*
*Bluff Setback: 40 feet*

**Urban Mixed District (CA-UM)**
*River Setback: 50 feet*
*Bluff Setback: 40 feet*

**Urban Core District (CA-UC)**
*River Setback: s specified by underlying zoning*
*Bluff Setback: 40 feet*

Where principal structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, the minimum setback may be altered to conform to the average of the adjoining setbacks, provided that the new structure's scale and bulk riverward or bluffward of the setbacks required under from the river and bluffs are consistent with adjoining development. No structures or impervious surfaces are allowed within the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone, except as specified under Minnesota Rules 6106.0180.

**Figure 2-4** shows the height and river and bluff setback requirements for each MRCCA district. It is provided for general context. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all the MRCCA district and rule requirements. Please consult the MRCCA rules and the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance for the specific MRCCA district and zoning ordinance regulations.

| | CA-ROS | CA-RN | CA-RTC | CA-SR | CA-UM | CA-UC |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Height | 35' | 35' | 48'[^ *] | Underlying zoning | 65'[^ *] | Underlying zoning |
| River Setback | 200' | 100' | 75' | NA | 50' | Underlying zoning |
| Bluff Setback | 100' | 40' | 40' | 40' | 40' | 40' |

[^ *]: Greater height may be allowed with a local Conditional Use Permit.

**FIGURE 2-4: GENERAL MRCCA DISTRICT HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.**

<!-- page 353 -->
## MINNEAPOLIS 2040 FUTURE BUILT FORM GUIDANCE

The Built Form categories of the comprehensive plan guide the scale of development for every parcel in the city, independent of the uses allowed on the site. The built form of all new and remodeled buildings must be consistent with the guidance of the Built Form Map and MRCCA district requirements. The built form districts are described below and are mapped in Figures 2-5 through 2-7. They are consistent with the MRCCA Districts in the MRCCA. Where the built form guidance guides for a height greater than the Critical Area districts, the Critical Area regulations apply. Where the Critical Area districts allow for a conditional use permit to increase height, the built form category provides additional guidance on appropriate building height.

### Interior 1

The Interior 1 district is typically applied in parts of the city farthest from downtown, in the areas between transit routes.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Interior 1 district should be small-scale residential. Individual lots are permitted to have up to three dwelling units. Combining of lots is generally not permitted. Building heights should be 1 to 2.5 stories.

### Interior 2

The Interior 2 district is typically applied in parts of the city that developed during the era when streetcars were a primary mode of transportation, in the areas between transit routes, and on select streets with intermittent local transit service. It is also applied adjacent to the Corridor 4 and Corridor 6 districts, serving as a transition to lower intensity residential areas.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Interior 2 district should be small-scale residential . Individual lots are permitted to have up to three dwelling units. Multifamily buildings with more than three units are permitted on larger lots. Limited combining of lots is permitted. Building heights should be 1 to 2.5 stories.

### Interior 3

The Interior 3 district is typically applied in parts of the city closest to downtown, in the areas in between transit routes. It is also applied adjacent to select corridors and near METRO stations, serving as a transition to lower intensity residential areas.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Interior 3 district should reflect a variety of building types on both small and moderate-sized lots, including on combined lots. Building heights should be 1 to 3 stories.

### Corridor 4

The Corridor 4 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes farther from downtown, that are on narrower rights of way, and on select streets with local transit service. It is also applied near downtown in areas between transit routes, and serves as a transition between lower intensity residential areas and areas immediately surrounding METRO stations.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Corridor 4 district should reflect a variety of building types on both small and moderate-sized lots, including on combined lots. Building heights should be 1 to 4 stories. Requests to exceed 4 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

### Corridor 6

The Corridor 6 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes as well as in areas near METRO stations.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Corridor 6 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Building heights should be 2 to 6 stories. Building heights should be at least 2 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Corridor 6 district. Requests to exceed 6 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is

<!-- page 354 -->
a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

### Transit 10
The Transit 10 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes, adjacent to METRO stations, in neighborhoods near downtown, and in downtown.

*Built Form Guidance: New and remodeled buildings in the Transit 10 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Building heights should be 2 to 10 stories. Building heights should be at least 2 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Transit 10 district. Requests to exceed 10 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.*

### Transit 15
The Transit 15 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes, adjacent to METRO stations, in neighborhoods near downtown, and in downtown.

*Built Form Guidance: New and remodeled buildings in the Transit 15 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Building heights should be 4 to 15 stories. Building heights should be at least 4 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Transit 15 district. Requests to exceed 15 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.*

### Transit 20
The Transit 20 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes, adjacent to METRO stations, in neighborhoods near downtown, and in downtown.

*Built Form Guidance: New and remodeled buildings in the Transit 20 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Upper floors of taller buildings should be set back to increase access to light and air. Building heights should be 6 to 20 stories. Building heights should be at least 6 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Transit 20 district. Requests to exceed 20 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.*

### Transit 30
The Transit 30 district is typically applied along high frequency transit routes, adjacent to METRO stations, in neighborhoods near downtown, and adjacent to the downtown office core.

*Built Form Guidance: New and remodeled buildings in the Transit 30 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots. Upper floors of taller buildings should be set back to increase access to light and air. Building heights should be 10 to 30 stories. Building heights should be at least 10 stories in order to best take advantage of the access to transit, jobs, and goods and services provided by the Transit 30 district. Requests to exceed 30 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.*

### Core 50
The Core 50 district is applied in the downtown central business district. The district supports the office core as the center of the region’s economy by allowing the largest building types in the city.

*Built Form Guidance: New and remodeled buildings in the Core 50 district should reflect a variety of building types on both moderate and large sized lots, with multiple buildings per block. The Core 50 district supports the office core as the center of the region’s economy, with the largest building types in the city. Building heights should be at least 10 stories, with no maximum.*

<!-- page 355 -->
### Production
The Production district is typically applied in areas of the city that are intended for the long term preservation of production, transportation, and job generating uses.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Production built form district should reflect a variety of building types, usually on large sized lots. Building heights should be 1 to 10 stories. Requests to exceed 10 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan Goals.

### Parks
The Parks district is typically applied in areas with the Parks and Open Space future land use designation.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Parks built form district should be designed to support typical parks activities such as shelters, amphitheaters, food service, and equipment rental. Building heights should be 1 to 2.5 stories. Requests to exceed 2.5 stories will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not a taller building is a reasonable means for further achieving Comprehensive Plan goals.

### Transportation
The Transportation district is typically applied in areas with the Transportation future land use designation.

*Built Form Guidance:* New and remodeled buildings in the Transportation built form district should generally conform to the districts adjacent to it on the map.

<!-- page 356 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2-5: UPPER RIVER - MINNEAPOLIS BUILT FORM GUIDANCE OVER MRCCA DISTRICTS.**

<!-- page 357 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2-6: CENTRAL RIVER - MINNEAPOLIS BUILT FOR GUIDANCE OVER MRCCA DISTRICTS.**

<!-- page 358 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2-7: LOWER GORGE - MINNEAPOLIS BUILT FORM GUIDANCE OVER MRCCA DISTRICTS.**

<!-- page 359 -->
# Chapter 3 - Primary Conservation Areas

### GENERAL OVERVIEW
Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) are defined in the MRCCA rules (6106.0050, Subp. 53) as key resources and features, including shore impact zones, bluff impact zones, floodplains, wetlands, gorges, areas of confluence with tributaries, natural drainage routes, unstable soils and bedrock, native plant communities, cultural and historic properties, significant existing vegetative stands, tree canopies and “other resources” identified in local government MRCCA plans.

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-1: SHORE IMPACT ZONE.**

### SHORE IMPACT ZONE
“Shore impact zone” means land located between the ordinary high water level of public waters and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the required MRCCA district structure setback (or underlying zoning district in CA-SR or CA-UC districts) or, for areas in agricultural use, 50 feet landward of the ordinary high water level (MRCCA Rules 6106.0050, Subp. 68). See **Figures 3-1 through 3-4**. Structures and impervious surfaces must not be located in the shore impact zone and must meet setback requirement from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River and other waters within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, as specified for each district (note that the CA-SR and CA-UC districts do not require setbacks from the ordinary high water level, but are subject to underlying zoning district setbacks).

<!-- page 360 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-2: UPPER RIVER - SHORE IMPACT ZONE.**

<!-- page 361 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-3: CENTRAL RIVER - SHORE IMPACT ZONE.**

<!-- page 362 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-4: LOWER GORGE - SHORE IMPACT ZONE.**

<!-- page 363 -->
### FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS

The floodplain is the riverbed and the area adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which has been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood (1% annual chance). Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season. The approximate location of the floodplain and wetlands are included on the maps in Figures 3-5 through 3-7 for context. The City’s Zoning Ordinance and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps should be consulted for further detail on boundaries and requirements.

<!-- page 364 -->
# Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-5: UPPER RIVER – WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS.**

<!-- page 365 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-6: CENTRAL RIVER – WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS.**

<!-- page 366 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-7: LOWER GORGE – WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS.**

<!-- page 367 -->
### NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS

Natural Drainage Ways in Minneapolis include Shingle Creek and Minnehaha Creek. Bassett Creek is conveyed to the river in a tunnel and Bridal Veil Creek in a pipe, exiting as a falls. They are included in this map, but are not day-lighted drainage ways.

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-9: UPPER RIVER – NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS.**

<!-- page 368 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-10: CENTRAL RIVER – NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS.**

<!-- page 369 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-11: LOWER GORGE – NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS.**

<!-- page 370 -->
## BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONES
MRCCA rules 6106.0050, Subp. 8 defines “Bluff” as a natural topographic feature having:

**A.** a slope that rises at least 25 feet and the grade of the slope averages 18 percent or greater, measured over a horizontal distance of 25 feet, as follows:

**1.** where the slope begins above the ordinary high water level, from the toe of the slope to the top of the slope; or
**2.** where the slope begins below the ordinary high water level, from the ordinary high water level to the top of the slope. See **Figure 3-12**; or

**B.** a natural escarpment or cliff with a slope that rises at least ten feet above the ordinary high water level or toe of the slope, whichever is applicable, to the top of the slope, with a slope of 75 degrees or greater.

MRCCA rules 6106.0050, Subp. 9 defines the “Bluff Impact Zone” (BIZ) as the bluff and land within 20 feet of the bluff. See **Figure 3-12**.

See **Figures 3-13** through **3-15** for bluff locations in Minneapolis. The identification and protection of steep slopes and bluffs is regulated by the SH Shoreland Overlay District and the MR Mississippi River Critical Overlay District in the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance.

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-12: BLUFFS AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONES.**

<!-- page 371 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-13: UPPER RIVER – BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.**

<!-- page 372 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-14: CENTRAL RIVER – BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.**

<!-- page 373 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-15: LOWER GORGE – BLUFF IMPACT ZONE.**

<!-- page 374 -->
## NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES & SIGNIFICANT EXISTING VEGETATIVE STANDS

### MNative Plant Communities

Native plant communities are mapped by the DNR Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) and identify sites that are 5 acres or greater and meet the criteria established by the MBS to qualify as a native plant community. The DNR describes native plant communities as follows:

> “A native plant community is a group of native plants that interact with each other and with their environment in ways not greatly altered by modern human activity or by introduced organisms. These groups of native plant species form recognizable units, such as oak savannas, pine forests, or marshes, that tend to repeat over space and time. Native plant communities are classified and described by considering vegetation, hydrology, landforms, soils, and natural disturbance regimes. Examples of natural disturbances include wildfires, severe droughts, windstorms, and floods.
> 
> Sometimes referred to as native habitats or natural communities, native plant communities are named for the characteristic plant species within them or for characteristic environmental features.
> 
> There are many kinds of vegetated areas that are not native plant communities. These include places where native species have largely been replaced by exotic or invasive species such as smooth brome grass, buckthorn, and purple loosestrife, and planted areas such as orchards, pine plantations, golf courses, and lawns. Other areas not considered to be native plant communities include areas where modern human activities such as farming, overgrazing, non-sustainable logging, and development have destroyed or greatly altered the vegetation.”[^p374-1]

According to the DNR, native plant communities are important because:

> “Native plant communities provide a range of ecological functions that are increasingly recognized as valuable for the quality of life in Minnesota and even for human health and safety. Among these functions are water filtration, flood moderation, carbon storage, moderation of water-table level, local temperature moderation, erosion control, and development and enrichment of soil.” In addition, they provide habitat for several thousand plant and animal species. They also played an important role in the development of Minnesota’s cultural history and heritage.”[^p374-2]

Appendix B, MRCCA Native Plant Communities, provides more detailed information on the identified Native Plant Communities.

### Significant Existing Vegetative Stands:

The DNR identified a set of vegetation classes that were deemed significant for the purposes of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA), which shares the same boundaries as the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. The Metropolitan Council describes significant existing vegetative stands as important because:

> “This vegetation provides high ecological value in addition to the water quality and scenic values of “natural vegetation.” Ecologically, this vegetation provides species diversity, habitat for endangered and threatened plants (supporting 19[^] state-listed rare plant species and 15[^] state-listed rare animal species in the MRCCA), and a continuous corridor where plants and animals can naturally spread and disperse. This latter characteristic is especially important as habitat becomes more fragmented, climate change accelerates, and invasive species increase. In addition, these vegetation areas serve as living remnants of the original native communities that existed in the corridor, even though they do not meet the size and quality criteria to be classified as a Native Plant Community by the MBS.”[^p374-3]

[^p374-1]: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/index.html
[^p374-2]: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/whyimportant.html
[^p374-3]: https://metrocouncil.org/Handbook/Plan-Elements/Land-Use/MRCCA/Files/PCAs.aspx

<!-- page 375 -->
# Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

The DNR created mapping layers of significant areas based on a National Park Service inventory. Plant communities were considered significant when they were largely intact and connected and contain sufficient representation of the original native plant community to be identifiable as a distinct class.[^p375-4]

The following classes are considered significant:[^p375-5]

* Central Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie,
* Central Riverine Wetland Vegetation,
* Eastern North American Freshwater Aquatic Vegetation,
* Eastern North American Freshwater Marsh,
* Eastern North American Temperate Cliff,
* Eastern Temperate Wet Shoreline Vegetation,
* Laurentian & Acadian Pine - Oak Forest & Woodland,
* Laurentian-Acadian-Allegheny Alkaline Swamp,
* Midwest Wet Prairie & Wet Meadow,
* North-Central Beech - Maple - Basswood Forest,
* North-Central Oak - Hickory Forest & Woodland,
* Northern & Central Native Ruderal Flooded & Swamp Forest,
* Northern & Central Native Ruderal Forest,
* Northern & Central Ruderal Wet Meadow & Marsh,
* Riverine Mosaic Vegetation,
* Sand & Gravel Tallgrass Prairie,
* Silver Maple - Green Ash - Sycamore Floodplain Forest

The following classes are not considered significant:[^p375-6]

* Herbaceous & Woody Developed Vegetation,
* Herbaceous Agricultural Vegetation,
* Northern & Central Ruderal Meadow & Shrubland, Open Water (Non-USNVC), Woody Agricultural Vegetation

The removal of invasive plant species and replacement with native plantings is encouraged.

[^p375-4]: https://metrocouncil.org/Handbook/Plan-Elements/Land-Use/MRCCA/Files/PCAs.aspx
[^p375-5]: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/biota-mrcca-vegetation
[^p375-6]: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/biota-mrcca-vegetation

<!-- page 376 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-16: UPPER RIVER - NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES AND SIGNIFICANT EXISTING VEGETATIVE STANDS.**

<!-- page 377 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-17: CENTRAL RIVER - NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES AND SIGNIFICANT EXISTING VEGETATIVE STANDS.**

<!-- page 378 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-18: LOWER GORGE - NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES AND SIGNIFICANT EXISTING VEGETATIVE STANDS.**

<!-- page 379 -->
### CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES

St. Anthony Falls has cultural and spiritual significance to the Dakota.[^p379-1] Near the banks of the Mississippi River are also many reminders of the settlement of Minneapolis. The river and falls had an important role in transportation and water power and they enabled the important lumber and flour milling industries. Thus, many historically-designated properties are located in the Central Riverfront.

#### National Historic Landmarks

* Pillsbury A Mill, 301 Main St. S.E.
* Washburn Mill Complex, S. 1st St. & Park Ave.

#### National Register of Historic Places

* Capellen Memorial Bridge (Franklin Ave. over the Mississippi River)
* Cedar Avenue Bridge (10th Ave. S.E. over the Mississippi River)
* Grace Evangelic Lutheran Church (234 Harvard St. S.E.)
* Grain Belt Beer Sign (4 Island Avenue West)
* Intercity Bridge (Ford Pkwy. over the Mississippi River)
* Lock & Dam No. 2 (Mississippi River north of Lake St.)
* Minneapolis (Grain Belt) Brewing Company (vicinity of Marshall St. & 13th Ave. N.E.)
* Minneapolis Fire Department Repair Shop (24 University Ave. N.E.)
* Minneapolis Warehouse Historic District (roughly bounded by River St., 1st Ave. N., 6th St. N., 2nd Ave. N., 5th St N., 5th Ave. N., 3rd St. N., & 10th Ave. N.)
* Minnehaha Historic District (roughly bounded by Nawadaha Blvd., Hiawatha Ave., Minnehaha Ave., W. 49th St., Minnehaha Creek & the Mississippi River)
* Minnesota Soldiers Home Historic District (roughly bounded by Minnehaha Pkwy., Minnehaha Creek & the Mississippi River)
* St. Anthony Falls Historic District (roughly bounded by 2nd St., 10th Ave. S., 6th Ave. S.E., University Ave., 3rd Ave. N.E., Main St. N.E., & Plymouth Ave.)
* Twin City Rapid Transit Company Steam Plant (12-20 6th Ave. S.E.)
* University of Minnesota Old Campus Historic District (roughly bounded by University Ave. S.E., East River Rd., Pillsbury Dr. S.E. & Church St. S.E.)

#### Local Landmarks and Historic Districts

* Capellen Memorial Bridge (Franklin Ave. over the Mississippi River)
* Florence Court (1022 University Ave. S.E.)
* Minneapolis (Grain Belt) Brewing Company (vicinity of Marshall St. & 13th Ave. N.E.)
* C.A. Smith Lumber Historic District (4401 and 4400-4430 Lyndale Ave. N.)
* Dinkytown Commercial Historic District (vicinity of 14th Ave. S.E. and 4th St. S.E.)
* Minnehaha Historic District (roughly bounded by Nawadaha Blvd., Hiawatha Ave., Minnehaha Ave., W. 49th St., Minnehaha Creek & the Mississippi River)
* St. Anthony Falls Historic District (roughly bounded by 2nd St., 10th Ave. S., 6th Ave. S.E., University Ave., 3rd Ave. N.E., Main St. N.E., & Plymouth Ave.)
* Warehouse Historic District (roughly bounded by 1st Ave. N., 2nd St. N., 4th Ave. N., 2nd Ave. N. & 6th St. N.)
* University of Minnesota Greek Letter Chapter House Historic District (roughly bounded by University Ave. S.E., 5th St. S.E., 10th Ave, S.E., Harvard St. S.E. & Delaware St. S.E.)

#### National Civil Engineer Landmarks

* Stone Arch Bridge of the Great Northern Railway (Mississippi River, south of St. Anthony Falls)

#### Potential Historic Resources

There are also other properties identified as potentially eligible for the NRHP or local designation within various environmental reviews, City files, small area plans, and historic studies or surveys of the City. Some properties that are not considered eligible at the time of writing of this document may be potential resources based on the passage of time or the identification of new information. As a part of the demolition and development review processes, buildings and sites are reviewed to determine if potential historic resources are present before any demolition or redevelopment.

[^p379-1]: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/wcmsp-186155.pdf

<!-- page 380 -->
## Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-19: UPPER RIVER – HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKS.**

<!-- page 381 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-20: CENTRAL RIVER – HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKS.**

<!-- page 382 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-21: LOWER GORGE – HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKS.**

<!-- page 383 -->
### GORGES

The Mississippi River Gorge is the only gorge on the entire length of the Mississippi River and was created by the retreating St. Anthony Falls over a period of 10,000 years. It runs approximately eight miles from Saint Anthony Falls in downtown Minneapolis to the Minnesota River confluence in Mendota, Minnesota (the lower gorge geographic area for the maps in this plan is generally between the Franklin Avenue Bridge and the southern city limits). Historically this area had an eight mile stretch of rapids, but for approximately the last century it has been impounded by locks and two dams that also produce hydropower.

The lower gorge is the least-changed section of the river, with limestone bluffs, natural springs, falls, oak savanna, and hardwood forests. Its steep, heavily wooded bluffs retain much of their original character. In fact, from the water it is difficult in some places to recognize that there is a major city just beyond view. It is an area of exceptional scenic beauty that is unique in the heart of the city. It has high-quality native vegetation and restored areas. It is an area of significant wildlife habitat and is a major migratory corridor for birds.

The West River Parkway runs along the river down to Minnehaha Park, and from there, a bicycle and pedestrian path extends along and below the bluff to Historic Fort Snelling State Park. Bohemian Flats, East River Flats, and Riverside Park are areas that provide easy access to the gorge. In other areas, access to the water is more difficult, but people have worn paths down the slopes. The area offers opportunities for hiking, birdwatching, canoeing and rowing, and photography. In the autumn the area can provide spectacular viewing as trees change colors.

In the Lower Gorge the prominent visual feature should be trees and bluffs. The district should continue to be managed to preserve and enhance those natural scenic qualities.

### UNSTABLE SOILS & BEDROCK

Currently there is not a comprehensive inventory of all unstable soils and bedrock in Minneapolis. Some information can be found in the DNR report “Historical Landslide Inventory for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area” (2016). The known historical landslides from this report located in the Minneapolis Critical Area are mapped in Figure 3-22. However, it is reasonable to assume that other areas with steep slopes could be unstable. For example, in June of 2014, there was a major landslide on the West River Parkway between Franklin Avenue and 4th Street South. This landslide required a major repair and closed the parkway until September of 2016. Therefore, development or alteration of terrain in or near those areas of steep slopes should be evaluated with regard to the possibility of unstable soils or bedrock. Further, stormwater management and drainage plans for development should consider the effect of stormwater and drainage on bluffs. Hennepin County has commissioned an atlas to identify known landslides. When this atlas is completed it will be a resource for the MRCCA in Minneapolis regarding unstable soils and bedrock.

<!-- page 384 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3-22: HISTORIC LANDSLIDES.**

<!-- page 385 -->
# Chapter 4 - Public River Corridor Views

Protecting views of and from the river is an objective of the Critical Area Act. In addition, preserving or improving the appearance of urban development within the Critical Area will also enhance the experience of using the corridor and enjoying the river. Changes in the river corridor should complement the visual characteristics of the river. The first aspect of providing for visual quality along the river is to control and guide actions which might have adverse visual impact. However, this is not intended to prevent development in the MRCCA where shown as appropriate by adopted City plans and as regulated by the Critical Area districts and rules.

### PUBLIC VIEW IMPACTS
Each of the three river sections has its own unique built and natural environments that feature prominently in its views. New development should support and highlight these characteristics, while minimizing negative impacts.

**Upper Riverfront**
The relatively low and gentle slopes that characterize the upper riverfront gave rise to the heavy industrial land uses on both banks. Views along this stretch (St. Anthony Parkway to Boom Island Park) are characterized by easy access to the river’s edge and long views to downtown. As land uses diversify into residential and mixed uses, supportive and parallel uses specific to the river access, such as recreation and habitat restoration will complement the existing views and allow for new ones. Existing views could also be improved with overlook structures, stairways, piers, or shoreline walkways. Shoreline edges should focus on reducing erosion and restoring native habitat while occasionally allowing hard edges for direct water access at key locations.

In general, the Public River Corridor Views (PRCVs) do not prohibit development of buildings or structures visible from the river, as guided by the land use categories of the comprehensive plan and the MRCCA districts. Therefore, new development should be designed to improve views by providing a striking background to the river’s shoreline through building and site landscape design. Care should be taken that views of downtown from prime locations are not significantly obstructed by larger buildings. Where there are street or right-of-way corridors leading to the river, development should not encroach into these areas and block views from the adjacent neighborhoods to the river. Tiering and tapering of buildings with landscaping and buffering, as described in Chapter 2, are important strategies for implementing development.

Uses or activities that may have a negative impact on visual quality, such as surface parking, outdoor storage, mechanical equipment, utilities, communication towers or antennas, transmission lines, large scale solar energy systems, and billboards are discouraged form locating in PRCVs. If allowed by the zoning ordinance or other applicable regulations and no other reasonable location is possible, they should be reduced in scale and scope and landscaped and screened from the river to the extent possible.

**Central Riverfront**
The central riverfront in downtown Minneapolis is a dramatic showcase of history, culture, infrastructure, architecture, and geology. Views here (Hennepin Avenue Bridge to East River Flats Park) often offer 360 degrees of breath-taking sights, drawing tourists and locals alike in all seasons. The current river edge conditions vary a great degree from a formal, European-style edge along West River Parkway near the Hennepin Avenue Bridge to the wild, untidy ruins at Father Hennepin Park. It can be difficult to access the river’s edge in some areas, which is especially unfortunate given its unique potential for seeing and experiencing the power of the river. The central riverfront could be greatly improved with more and better access to the water, which could be accomplished

<!-- page 386 -->
through structured river edges and new locations for unique downtown experiences along the riverfront, such as outdoor dining, strolling, boating, and places to sit and enjoy the views. Both the built and natural environments here offer a substantial degree of enclosure along the riverfront with tall buildings atop bluffs.

In general, the PRCVs do not prohibit development, as guided by the land use categories in the comprehensive plan. New development should respond to this context with a height, bulk, and form that is in keeping with a major metropolitan downtown and historic district, as this will reinforce and enhance the strengths of existing views.

Uses or activities that may have a negative impact on visual quality, such as surface parking, outdoor storage, mechanical equipment, utilities, communication towers or antennas, transmission lines, large scale solar energy systems, and billboards are discouraged form locating in PRCVs. If allowed by the zoning ordinance or other applicable regulations and no other reasonable location is possible, they should be reduced in scale and scope and landscaped and screened from the river to the extent possible.

### Lower Gorge

The lower gorge’s steep bluffs, wooded river bottoms, hidden sand beaches, and picturesque bridges offer a strong and quiet refuge in the heart of a major metropolitan area. The most dramatic views are from its bridges (Franklin Bridge to Ford Bridge), but there are also notable views from the river edges at the base of the bluffs, though access here is difficult. In order to accentuate its existing natural environment -- which contributes so prominently to the views -- native plant communities and bluffs should continue to be preserved and restored. Existing stairs and trails that access the river edge and existing overlooks should be maintained and improved for accessibility. Certain views would benefit from the thoughtful trimming of overgrown vegetation at key locations.

In the Lower Gorge the prominent visual feature should be trees and bluffs. The important PRCV is the gorge. Therefore, the district should continue to be managed to preserve and enhance those natural scenic qualities. From the I-94 Bridge to the southern city limits, the bluffs of the Mississippi River Gorge should be protected from development in the MRCCA that is visible from the opposite shoreline. Any development that removes vegetation of is visible from the river should be discouraged. However, where development is river dependent, such as parks and park facilities, or for necessary infrastructure where no reasonable alternative is possible, then the structures should be reduced in scale and scope to the extent possible and landscaping and screening should be utilized to mitigate the impact of the development. Given the gorge's unique qualities, buildings or structures situated close to the bluffs that tower over the tree line and feature prominently in identified views would negatively impact the area and should be avoided. From this vantage point, structures atop the bluff should not be readily visible above the tree tops as seen during the summer months. To that extent, the gorge area is within districts (CA-ROS and CA-RN) that have height limits of 35 feet. The exception to this is views of the University of Minnesota and the downtown skyline, which come into view upstream of Lake Street.

## PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION

The river corridor contains some of the most iconic and cherished scenic vistas in Minnesota and is one of the reasons the corridor was designated a critical area. PRCVs is a term defined in the Critical Area rules and used as a means to protect scenic views. The rules define PRCV as:

*   Views toward the river from public parkland, historic properties, and public overlooks.
*   Views toward bluffs from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore, as seen during the summer months.

Guidance from the DNR and Metropolitan Council indicates that other scenic views that are valued by the community may be identified and that views from specific places that

<!-- page 387 -->
are accessible to the public can also be mapped and described.

The PRCV in this plan include some views identified in City adopted plans and historic district guidelines. In addition, further view corridors toward the river were identified from public parks and property, historic properties, streets, and bridge overlooks. Also, views toward bluffs from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore and from public parks and bridge overlooks were included. The views illustrated in this plan are not an exhaustive list of every public river corridor view and are intended to provide a representation of types of important views. In general, the types of views are organized into the following groupings:

**Public Parks** – Public Parks, while enhancing the beauty of the river, are also important areas for preserving public access to the river and views of the river corridor. This document shows views from several parks to emphasize policy support for maintain and improving viewing areas and the importance of public access to the river and views of the river. The omission of an identified view park in this document does not imply that it is not an appropriate place from which to view the river. The identification of a specific view in a park does not indicate that it is the only place in the park where there are river views.

**Overlooks** – Overlooks will most often be located in parkland or on bridges. They are important as public access points to allow views of the river corridor.

**Bridges** – Many existing bridges are important cultural or aesthetic elements of the corridor. This document shows views from several bridges to emphasize that bridge conversion, rehabilitation, or reconstruction should maintain, improve, or add opportunities for river views from the bridge.

**Historic Properties** – Where public viewing areas are added to historic properties the appropriate district or landmark guidance should be consulted.

**Street Corridors** – Streets perpendicular to the river provide corridors from the neighborhoods to the river. In some cases, such as 26th Avenue North, their termination at the river is planned for an overlook at the river bank. In other places the streets terminate at parkland. Therefore, vacations of these rights-of-way to allow for the construction of structures is strongly discouraged to prevent these view corridors to and from the river to be blocked.

**Lower Gorge** – In the Lower Gorge the important PRVC is the gorge. Therefore, this plan list some representative locations as PRCVs, but not every possible spot in the gorge, because at almost any place one has a PRCV toward bluffs from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore, as seen during the summer months.

See **Figures 4-1** through **4-3** for locations of representative PRCVs listed in this plan. A narrative, map, and pictures are proved in **Figure 4-4**, MRCCA Public River View Corridors.

<!-- page 388 -->
# Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 4-1: UPPER RIVER - PUBLIC RIVER CORRIDOR VIEWS.**

<!-- page 389 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 4-2: CENTRAL RIVER - PUBLIC RIVER CORRIDOR VIEWS.**

<!-- page 390 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 4-3: LOWER GORGE - PUBLIC RIVER CORRIDOR VIEWS.**

<!-- page 391 -->
#### FIGURE 4-4: MRCCA PUBLIC RIVER CORRIDOR VIEWS

**1. North Mississippi River Regional Park** - The North Mississippi River Regional Park extends from just south of the Camden Bridge in Minneapolis north through Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park to the Coon Rapids Dam (north of 53rd Avenue North is outside of Minneapolis). The regional park provides a scenic view of the river’s east bank including the Minneapolis water treatment and distribution facility in Fridley and several small islands. Example view locations are depicted at the Camden Boat Launch south of 42nd Avenue North and at the Kroening Interpretive Center.

<<FIGURE>>

**2. St. Anthony Parkway** - The Grand Rounds Trail along St. Anthony Parkway provides a scenic view of the river’s west bank. Upstream is a view of an historic railroad bridge, while downstream is a unique scene which contains the downtown skyline, Lowry Bridge and visually-interesting structures at Upper Harbor Terminal. In warmer seasons these views may be hindered by the shoreline vegetation. The riverbank offers several locations for a prospective overlook or promenade along the river for public access..

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 392 -->
**3. Marshall Terrace Park** - Views from Marshall Terrace Park were identified in the Above the Falls: Upper River Master Plan for Minneapolis due to its high banks and good observation points. The western border of the park offers expansive views, to the south is the downtown skyline and Lowry Bridge and to the north are views of the upstream islands. The islands are home to Blue Herons, Sandpipers and Peregrine Falcons adding an ecological element to the views. Marshall Terrace Park has existing infrastructure allowing the public access to the riverbank to enjoy the views and marking the park as a destination for birdwatchers.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**4. Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO)** - The Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO) provides the public a wonderful opportunity to learn about the health of the Mississippi River while accessing views of river. This location gives the public an up close and personal view of the Lowry Bridge, especially when the bridge is lit at night. A section of the downtown skyline can be viewed underneath the bridge while standing on the riverbank.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 393 -->
**5. Lowry Avenue Bridge Lookout** - The Lowry Avenue Bridge has four lookout spaces - two facing north and two facing south - which offer unobstructed elevated view corridors of the Mississippi River in both directions. Upstream are views of multiple bridges, parkland, Upper Harbor Terminal, the “bird sanctuary” islands and Betty Danger’s famous Ferris wheel to the east. Downstream has a wide and central view of the entire downtown skyline. The banks on both sides of the river present opportunities for visual enhancements.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**6. Edgewater Park** - Adjacent to the Lowry Avenue Bridge, Edgewater Park grants the public clear views of the bridge and a slight view of downtown from its high bank outlook. In warmer seasons views of downtown are hindered by the overgrown shoreline vegetation. Pruning measures could improve the view shed in the future. Across the river, on the west bank are possible opportunities to create landscapes which add visual interest to the shoreline and enhance the view.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 394 -->
**7. 26th Avenue North** - Where 26th Avenue North terminates at the river is a location for a future overlook that would provide a scenic view of the river’s east bank. The street has just been reconstructed as a bikeway stretching from With Park at the west end of the city across north Minneapolis connecting to the Mississippi River. Currently the land adjacent to the river in the area proposed for a future overlook is overgrown and not a welcoming area for viewing the river.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**8. Orvin “Ole” Olson Park** - Orvin “Ole” Olson Park has an expansive unobstructed view downstream of the entire downtown skyline. On the east bank the public has views of the shoreline, the landmark sculpture in Sheridan Memorial Park and the historic Grain Belt Towers in the distance. Although the view upstream is hindered, there is a direct view of the historic railroad bridge. The park’s low elevation allows the public to hear the sounds of the river and feel close to the water. In the RiverFirst report, the potential Great Northern Greenway River Link along the west riverbank could possibly extend access of these views further upstream.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 395 -->
**9. Sheridan Memorial Park/Hall’s Island** - Sheridan Memorial Park is home to a marvelous tribute to our city’s fallen soldiers and lovely views of Mississippi River from the east bank. Serene views of the historical railroad bridge to the north, Orvin “Ole” Olson Park and the shoreline to the west and the West Broadway Bridge and downtown’s skyline to the south are visible form this location. Sheridan Memorial Park’s proximity and openness to the river allows visitors and its adjacent commerce community to connect to the river. Additional views will be provided in this area when access is added to the newly constructed Hall’s Island (not depicted in the pictures below).

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**10. 17th Avenue North** - 17th Avenue North is a main east-west connection that runs from Washington Avenue North to the West River Parkway. At its terminus there is a park and an overlook that provides views of the newly constructed Hall’s Island and of downtown.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 396 -->
**11. Boom Island Park** - Boom Island Park was identified in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District Design Guidelines due to its expansive unhindered views of downtown Minneapolis. As with Sheridan Memorial Park, Boom Island also has close proximity and openness to the riverbank allowing visitors to fish or take photos from the outlooks. Boom Island is even home to a lighthouse at the northern portion of the park. To the north the public can view upstream, the lighthouse and Plymouth Avenue Bridge. To the west are views of the shoreline’s floodplain forest and to the south is the entire downtown skyline with a railroad bridge in the background. The variety of visual features adds to the sightseeing experience at this location.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**12. Hennepin Avenue Bridge** - The Hennepin Avenue Bridge provides clear elevated views of the river’s east and west banks, as noted in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District Design Guidelines. Upstream are views of Nicollet Island, the architectural frame of an old railroad bridge, natural vegetation along West River Parkway and the historic Grain Belt Beer sign towering over the natural riparian buffer. Downstream is a wide view of the entire downtown sector including the US Bank Stadium, the Guthrie Theater, the Horseshoe portion of St. Anthony Falls and 3rd Avenue Bridge.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 397 -->
**13. Nicollet Island** - The southern tip of Nicollet Island was noted in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District Design Guidelines being a key view opportunity along the river. Located in the center of the Mississippi above St. Anthony Falls, this site provides a one of a kind experience to view the city and the Mississippi from the river itself. The public will get a human scale perspective of the Hennepin Avenue Bridge, the downtown skyline, St. Anthony Falls and commerce on St. Anthony Main. Likewise, looking south, the public will get an up close view of the architectural arches and details of the 3rd Avenue Bridge.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**14. St. Anthony Main** - The St. Anthony Falls Historic District Design Guidelines selected St. Anthony Main on the east riverbank as a key viewpoint site. Its openness to the river gives people strolling or dining on Southeast Main Street a tranquil scene of the west riverbank, filled with views of the downtown skyline, Water Power Park, Nicollet Island, Mill District, 3rd Avenue Bridge and the landmark Stone Arch Bridge.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 398 -->
**15. Water Power Park** - Water Power Park was identified in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District Design Guidelines due to views from Hennepin Island in all directions. The northern tip of Water Power Park provides the public with a rare, unobstructed, 360-degree views of the core of the city while located in the middle of the Mighty Mississippi River. The view highlights both the east and west banks of the river consisting of the downtown skyline, Mill District, the University of Minnesota campus, Stone Arch Bridge and St. Anthony Falls, the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River.

<<FIGURE>>

**16. Downtown West Bank/Lock and Dam Visitor Center** - The St. Anthony Falls Historic District Design Guidelines and RiverFirst Report acknowledged the Downtown West Bank as a critical location for river views. The future home of Water Works Park has a view shed of Nicollet Island, 3rd Avenue Bridge, St. Anthony Falls and Water Power Park, the east riverbank by St. Anthony Main, Hennepin Island, Stone Arch Bridge and the steam plant. Additional views closer to the river are available in this area at the St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam Visitor Center.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 399 -->
**17. Stone Arch Bridge** - The Stone Arch Bridge is a historic landmark in Minneapolis and its views were noted in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District Design Guidelines. The Stone Arch Bridge gives its visitors an elevated unobstructed view of the river from all angles, branding it as a city destination. It is the best place in the city to encounter the power of St. Anthony Falls and to see the natural beauty of Father Hennepin Bluff Park in one location. The river views of both the east and west banks consist of the Hennepin Avenue Bridge, the downtown skyline, Mill City District, Mills Ruins Park, the University of Minnesota campus, Water Power Park, Hennepin Island, Interstate 35 Bridge, Gold Medal Park, the steam plant and as noted St. Anthony Falls. In addition to an intimate view of the massive St. Anthony Falls’ Lock and Dam which gives visitors a historic perspective of how the river has been altered over time.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**18. Mill City District** - The Mill City District was identified in the St. Anthony Falls Historic District Design Guidelines due to its view shed of the river. In addition, there are views of the Stone Arch Bridge, St. Anthony Falls’ Lock and Dam, Hennepin Island, and the University of Minnesota campus on the east riverbank. The site has a first-hand view of Mill Ruins Park which allows visitors to experience river history through the preservation an old mill site.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 400 -->
**19. Bohemian Flats** - Bohemian Flats Park offers the public an upfront and clear view of the towering bluffs on the east bank. The naturally vegetated landscape is crowned with the skyline of the University of Minnesota Medical Center East Bank campus. Upstream is the Northern Pacific Pedestrian Bridge and views of the campus. Downstream are views of the iconic Fredrick R. Weisman Art Museum, the gorge and the Washington Avenue Bridge. The park's location on the river- south of the falls and dams- allows for docking large boats which adds a unique element to the overall view.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**20. East River Flats Park** - East River Flats Park is one of the few places in which the public has direct access to the river itself. Home to the University of Minnesota’s Boathouse, the riverbank serves as a public launching spot for canoes, kayaks and rowboats. The park is surrounded by stunning vegetated bluffs to its east and across the river to the west. An expansive view shed includes multiple bridges and the gorge up and downstream.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 401 -->
**21. Franklin Avenue Bridge** - The Franklin Avenue Bridge marks the transition of the riverbanks shifting from a predominantly urban landscape to a natural intact character heading downstream. The divergent panorama includes an expansive view upstream of the city’s bustling downtown and the University of Minnesota’s campuses located on both sides of the river. Downstream reveals a peaceful view of the vegetated bluffs, exposed riverbanks and hiking trails.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**22. Lake Street Bridge** - The Lake Street Bridge provides a broad 360-degree view of the vegetated shoreline and bluffs along the Mississippi River. Longfellow Beach, Ford Bridge and the depths of the Mississippi Gorge are seen downstream. Upstream views take in the architectural features of Franklin Avenue Bridge and the Minneapolis Rowing Club Building. Upon a closer look at the east bank, ruins of the old Meeker’s Island Lock and Dam can be seen.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 402 -->
**23. 36th Street Overlook** - The 36h Street Overlook is a rare view due to its position to look down upon the concealed Mississippi Gorge. The views consist of gorge, bluffs and shorelines up and downstream along the east riverbank. Unlike further upstream the entire view across the river is intact vegetated landscape growing on the bluffs.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**24. 44th Street Overlook** - The 44th Street Overlook at Winchell Trail is an elevated outlook on top of the bluffs on the west riverbank. Similar to the 36th Street overlook, the viewer will see the gorge, bluffs and shoreline up and downstream along the east bank. Most of the landscape is unaltered and minimal views of development can be seen from this location. In warmer seasons these views maybe hindered by the bluff’s vegetated canopy.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 403 -->
**25. Ford Bridge** - The Ford Parkway Bridge towers over the river showing wide and clear views downstream of the lock and dam, Minnehaha Regional Park, the Minnesota Veterans Home campus and the Ford steam plant. The vegetated bluffs are punctuated throughout with sights of rooftops and church steeples. Upstream is a charming view of unscathed and natural landscape on both sides of the riverbank, from the bluffs to shoreline.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

### VISUAL QUALITY AND SITE DEVELOPMENT

Preserving or improving the appearance of urban development within all areas of the Critical Area beyond PRCVs will also enhance the experience of using the corridor and enjoying the river. Any changes in the river corridor should complement the visual characteristics of the river. The first aspect of providing for visual quality along the river is to control and guide actions which might have adverse visual impact.

In addition to evaluating a proposed development for its environmental impact the City will also seek attractive and context-sensitive architectural design. Where development occurs on the bank close to the riverfront, structures should step back so that sunlight penetrates to the public areas. The total site and architectural design should contribute to creating a vibrant, interesting, and well-used riverfront and be consistent with adopted small area plans and the comprehensive plan.

When seeking and reviewing development proposals for land that the City owns along the riverfront, or when reviewing projects along the riverfront in the Critical Area to which the City is providing financial assistance, developments will be required to meet or surpass the standards for site design and architectural quality contained in the zoning code. Further, public facilities within the Critical Area by any agency of government should strive to attain a very high degree of visual design quality.

Uses or activities that may have a negative impact on visual quality, such as surface parking, outdoor storage, mechanical equipment, utilities, communication towers or antennas transmission lines and services, and billboards are regulated by the zoning code or other regulations. Beyond theses regulatory requirements and guidance adopted plans and polices, the MRCCA plan encourages that these uses be reduced in scale and scope where possible everywhere in the MRCCA. They should be landscaped and/or screened from the river if possible. Further guidance for some specific uses:

<!-- page 404 -->
• **Transmission Services** - In general, transmission services (transmission lines and pipelines) are considered to have a negative visual impact in the Critical Area. The City, in conjunction with Xcel Energy, will strongly discourage any new corridors for high voltage transmission lines to run parallel to or, especially, across the river. Necessary river crossings should be designed and located to minimize their visual impact. For instance, towers for transmission lines in the Central Riverfront were previously designed as large-scale pieces of art to add to the urban visual interest of that area. The City will evaluate and, if feasible, pursue relocation away from the river any high voltage transmission line that exists along the river. All electrical, telephone, and cable television lines in the Critical Area should eventually be located underground when technically feasible. If overhead placement of utilities is necessary, utility crossings must be hidden from view as much as practicable. The appearance of structures must be as compatible as practicable with the surrounding area in a natural state with regard to height and width, materials used, and color (Minnesota Rules 61016.0130 Subpart 6)

• **Wind Energy Conversion Systems** - Freestanding and building mounted wind energy conversion systems are prohibited by the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance in the Shoreland and Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay districts.

• **Billboards** - The City will continue to enforce the controls on billboards that exist in the zoning ordinance. Specifically prohibited are off-premises advertising signs and billboards that would be visible from the river, with the exception of signs designated by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission must approve all signage in historic districts and on individually designated properties. In addition, no advertising sign or billboard shall be located within 300 feet of a parkway or a public park of three acres or more.

• **Parking and Storage** - New and existing riverbank parking, loading, service, and outdoor storage areas should be visually screened from the public thoroughfare, public open space, and residential areas. Landscaped buffer zones and screening of those areas should be required of new and existing industry that is adjacent to a residential area or park. Any new parking developed in the riverfront area (first 300 feet back from the river) should be internal to the development were possible, not along the river.

• **Existing uses** - When opportunities arise, the City will encourage or require property owners to screen visually intrusive structures or activities. Opportunities may include applications to the City for site plan review or some form of public assistance. Screening may involve planting trees and shrubs or erecting fences. It is acknowledged that not all visually intrusive developments may be able to be screened from view from the river or from other points of view.

A future implementation step will be to evaluate regulations in the zoning code regarding theses uses (where regulated by zoning) to ensure they implement the goals of the MRCCA plan and other applicable adopted plans as a part of the future zoning code update.

<!-- page 405 -->
# Chapter 5 - Restoration Priorities

Development and redevelopment activities and acquisition of property for parkland represent opportunities in the corridor to restore natural vegetation, prevent erosion, and stabilize slopes. Restoration activities will maintain and improve resource integrity and water quality. Opportunities to create connections between existing greenspaces, between wildlife habit areas, and also to connect greenspace and wildlife habitat areas to adjacent neighborhoods are important. Restoration priorities include, but are not limited to:

* Restoration of natural vegetation
* Erosion prevention
* Bank and slope stabilization
* Other restoration activities

### RESTORATION OF NATURAL VEGETATION
The maps in **Figures 5-1** through **5-3** provide background information related to vegetation restoration priorities.[^p405-1] Existing native plants and areas of significant vegetation are represented by the green colors on the maps. Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) including shore impact zones, bluff impact zones, gorges, wetlands, and floodplains, where there is no or limited natural vegetation and that are particularly sensitive to vegetation removal or risk of erosion.

The areas mapped in yellow serve as a starting point for restoration activities. They are candidates for the restoration of natural vegetation. Factors to consider when evaluation restoration activities and development include:

* Proximity to native plant communities
* Opportunities to connect development to existing and planned parks and trails
* Opportunities to enhance Public River View Corridors
* Areas of known erosion or bank failure
* Opportunities to connect fragmented habitat

Site specific evaluations are necessary to determine where on a specific site protection or restoration activities should occur. The areas identified for protection, replacement, or restoration of vegetation on **Figures 5-1** through **5-3** do not necessarily prohibit development, if they are allowed by the MRCCA rules and the zoning code, but assumes those restoration activities occur in conjunction with the development and in conformance with the policies of this plan.

### EROSION PREVENTION
All development in the City is required to comply with the City’s stormwater management and erosion control ordinances. In addition, it is important to protect existing vegetation and to restore it where it is removed. Where vegetation does not exist, development activities should seek to restore vegetation with native species. The removal of invasive species and replacement with native vegetation is encouraged.

### BANK AND SLOPE STABILIZATION
Where the river edge has been altered, river bank restoration should occur. However, there are areas in the central riverfront, or Upper Harbor Terminal, where an existing hard edge to the river can be maintained. Currently there is not a comprehensive inventory of all unstable soils and bedrock in Minneapolis. It is reasonable to assume that areas with steep slopes could be unstable. Therefore, development or alteration of terrain in or near those areas of steep slopes should be evaluated with regard to the possibility of unstable soils or bedrock. Further, stormwater management and drainage plans for development should consider the effect of stormwater and drainage on bluffs.

### OTHER RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
Other restoration activities could include wetlands restoration, wildlife habitat restoration, and the addition of pollinator and wildlife friendly native plantings. The removal of invasive plant species and replacement with native plantings is appropriate and encouraged.

[^p405-1]: https://metrocouncil.org/Handbook/Plan-Elements/Land-Use/MRCCA/Files/Vegetation-Restoration.aspx

<!-- page 406 -->
## RESTORATION AREAS

The restoration of natural areas and banks along the Mississippi River has been an ongoing effort. Some recent and underway activities include prairie restoration at Ole Olson Park, Nicollet Island woodland and prairie restorations, and the Hall’s Island restoration. In general, the plan supports restoration activities everywhere in the corridor where necessary (and as guided by policies in this plan). Some key sites or categories that will be priorities, as listed in this section, (but this does does not imply that a site omitted form the list does not have policy support for restoration activities to occur):

* As sites are developed or redeveloped (especially when there is new construction, vegetation removal, or land disturbing activities) restoration of the site should occur in conjunction with that development activity.
* Sites identified in MPRB plans for restoration and future MPRB acquisitions.
* The Upper Harbor Terminal as it is developed.

## RESOURCES FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES

To facilitate restoration, it is important to engage key public partners. These include, but are not limited to, the City of Minneapolis, The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (MWMO). These organizations have staff to assist with policy guidance, regulatory issues, and technical assistance. Further there are several plans, ordinances, and technical studies that can provided guidance related to restoration activities. They include, but are not limited to:

* City of Minneapolis Surface Waters and Sewers Division, including stromwater management and erosion control ordinances and information: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/publicworks/stormwater/index.htm
* MPRB adopted plans and policies: https://www.minneapolisparks.org/
* The MPRB is developing a natural resource inventory and management plan for all the park system’s natural areas that can be a future resource for restoration activities when completed.
* MWMO studies, including Wetlands Assessment, Natural Resource Inventory, and Bank Stabilization and Bioengineering Manual: https://www.mwmo.org/management/watershed-assessment/
* The MWMO is currently developing a watershed habitat study to identify large swaths of habitat to protect and key gaps in the habitat to connect that can be a future resource for restoration activities when completed.
* Minnesota Biological Survey (DNR): https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mbs/index.html
* Historical Landslide Inventory for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (DNR): https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/landslide-inventory.pdf
* Hennepin County has commissioned an atlas to identify known landslides that can be a future resource for restoration activities when it is completed.

<!-- page 407 -->
# Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 5-1: UPPER RIVER – VEGETATION RESTORATION PRIORITIES..**

<!-- page 408 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 5-2: CENTRAL RIVER – VEGETATION RESTORATION PRIORITIES.**

<!-- page 409 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 5-3: LOWER GORGE – VEGETATION RESTORATION PRIORITIES.**

<!-- page 410 -->
# Chapter 6 - Open Space and Recreational Facilities

The potential of the Mississippi River in Minneapolis as a recreational resource was recognized early with the acquisition of Riverside Park in 1885, East River Road to Franklin Avenue in 1893, Minnehaha Park in 1887, and 455 acres for the Lower Gorge in 1905. Public land acquisition has continued, and parkways and linear parks have been built from Minnehaha Park all the way to Plymouth Avenue. North of Plymouth Avenue the linear park system has not yet been fully completed, but significant parkland exists that includes the North Mississippi Regional, Marshall Terrace, Edgewater, Gluek, Sheridan Memorial, and Olson parks.

Major adopted MPRB plans, and planning processes currently underway, for parks that are located in the MRCCA include:

* **Above The Falls Regional Park Master Plan** (not adopted 2013) - The Above the Falls (ATF) Regional Park was established in 2000 with the Above the Falls: A Master Plan for the Upper River in Minneapolis (2000 ATF Plan). The plan encompasses the area bordered by Plymouth Avenue North on the south end and 42nd Avenue North on its north end. See figure 6-4 for park boundaries. In 2007, MPRB implemented ATF Phase I on the west bank from Plymouth Avenue North to 22nd Avenue North.

  In 2012, MPRB approved the parks vision in RiverFirst, a 20-year vision for the upper river. The 2013 ATF Park Plan was created to reflect these plans and other evolving opportunities and priorities. The 2013 ATF Park Plan renews the vision of the original 2000 ATF Plan and integrates elements of ATF Phase I and RiverFirst, both of which share the original plan’s focus on “developing the Mississippi riverfront into a regional park amenity.” The revised plan includes long-term parks goals centered on an exceptional recreational and environmental resource – the Mississippi River. The ATF Regional Park will be a catalyst for the revitalization of the upper river area by creating a framework of recreation and restored ecological function. Eventually, the regional park boundary will encompass continuous public parks and trails, an extended West River Parkway, riverfront access points, significant park components and habitat and water-quality enhancements.

  Please note that the boundary shown in Figure 6-4 is from the Above the Falls Master Plan Update and is not the same as the regional park boundary. The City and MPRB are working cooperatively to resolve this difference.

* **Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park Master Plan** (adopted August 30, 2016) - The Central Mississippi River Riverfront Regional Park Master Plan (CMRRP) encompasses approximately 350 acres and 1.75 miles of riverfront along the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. It is part of a larger continuous regional park system along the river, abutted by the Above the Falls Regional Park to the north and the Mississippi Gorge Regional Park to the south. It is bordered by Plymouth Avenue North on its northern edge and the I-35W Bridge on its southern edge. See figure 6-5 for park boundary.

* **Mississippi Gorge Regional Park Master Plan** underway 2018) – the Mississippi River Regional Park is approximately 132 acres of land area flanking both the east and west banks of the Mississippi River, from just south of Bridge No. 9 to the north edge of Minnehaha Regional Park. As of 2018 the MPRB is researching and developing a proposal for a master plan to map management strategies befitting this river-adjacent, ecologically rich regional park with the potential to see two very different river futures based on the future of the lock and dam structures nearby on the Mississippi River. See figure 6-6 for park boundary. The purpose of the CMRRP Master Plan is to provide guidance on the redevelopment and enhancement of existing facilities

<!-- page 411 -->
and resources, as well as the acquisition of additional property and expansion of the regional park boundary. There are several other MPRB planning and implementation processes underway that are relevant to MRCCA. Due to the comprehensive and changing nature of these projects, a complete listing is not provided in this chapter, but further information can be found at: https://www.minneapolisparks.org/park_care__improvements/park_projects/

The MPRB plans are used to guide their planning of facilities, to identify proposed acquisitions, and to inform the use of park dedications (fees or land). They are the primary source of information for existing and planned park and recreation facilities in the corridor and should be consulted for development and implementation strategies in the corridor on existing and proposed parkland. They should also be used to inform development of private property in the MRCCA, so that it can facilitate MPRB planning goals, where possible.

<!-- page 412 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 6-1: UPPER RIVER - EXISTING OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 413 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 6-2: CENTRAL RIVER - EXISTING OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 414 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 6-3: LOWER GORGE - EXISTING OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 415 -->
# Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 6-4: ABOVE THE FALLS REGIONAL PARK MASTER PLAN PROPOSED PARK BOUNDARY.**

<!-- page 416 -->
# Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 6-5: CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI RIVERFRONT REGIONAL PARK MASTER PLAN PARK BOUNDARY.**

<!-- page 417 -->
# Chapter 7 - Transportation and Public Utilities

### TRANSPORTATION

The city’s transportation network intersects with the boundary of the MRCCA as shown in the maps on the following pages. Existing roadways are mapped on Figures 7-1 through 7-3. New streets will be built in conjunction with redevelopment of the Upper Harbor Terminal (Figure 7-4), with alignments and layouts to be determined. Planned additions to the city’s bicycle network are shown alongside existing bicycle facilities in Figures 7-5 through 7-7, consistent with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Existing and planned transit facilities are in Figures 7-8 through 7-10. The planned Orange Line BRT will terminate in downtown Minneapolis, just inside the MCCRA boundary. The Nicollet-Central streetcar is planned to cross the river on the 3rd Avenue bridge. And the Lake Street BRT line will cross the river on the Lake Street/Marshall Avenue bridge. This information is provided for background and context. The City’s relevant plans should be consulted for more detailed information.

<!-- page 418 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-1: UPPER RIVER - EXISTING INTERSTATE, ROADS, AND STREETS.**

<!-- page 419 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-2: CENTRAL RIVER - EXISTING INTERSTATE, ROADS, AND STREETS.**

<!-- page 420 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-3: LOWER GORGE- EXISTING INTERSTATE, ROADS, AND STREETS.**

<!-- page 421 -->
# Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-4: UPPER RIVER - FUTURE PLANNED ROADWAYS.**

<!-- page 422 -->
# Appendix A - Mississippi Corridor Critical Area Plan

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-5: UPPER RIVER- EXISTING AND PLANNED BIKE FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 423 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-6: CENTRAL RIVER – EXISTING AND PLANNED BIKE FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 424 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-7: LOWER GORGE – EXISTING AND PLANNED BIKE FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 425 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-8: UPPER RIVER- EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 426 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-9: CENTRAL RIVER- EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 427 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-10: LOWER GORGE- EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT FACILITIES.**

<!-- page 428 -->
## UTILITIES

Utilities include water and sewer infrastructure, electric power facilities, essential services, and transmissions services. They are further defined in the MRCCA rules.

### Major Utilities
Major utilities in the upper river include the Xcel Energy Riverside Generation, the CenterPoint Energy facility, and an Xcel Energy substation. Major utilities in the central river area include Xcel Energy St. Anthony Hydro, Center Point Energy, A Mill Hydro, and SAF Hydropower. See Figures 7-11 and 7-12. These facilities are existing and in general are located underground or are not located in PRCVs. In the case of the central riverfront, they are part of the existing urban development fabric. Continued improvement to the sites, such as the conversion of the Xcel Riverside Plant to natural gas and the associated elimination of outdoor storage of coal, is encouraged. While this plan does not identify any know negative effects on PCAs, the City will work with partner agencies and the utilities to continue to address issues should they be identified.

No new public utilities are proposed at this time. Where allowed by the policy guidance of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, new facilities should be reduced in scale and scope to the extent possible, avoid placement in PRCVs, avoid PCAs, and be designed to implement the goals of this and other plans and to mitigate any negative effects. Hydroelectric facilities should be evaluated for their effect on water flower over St. Anthony Falls.

### Transmission Services
In general, transmission services (transmission lines and pipelines) are considered to have a negative visual impact in the Critical Area. The City, in conjunction with Xcel Energy, will strongly discourage any new corridors for high voltage transmission lines to run parallel to or, especially, across the river. Necessary river crossings should be designed and located to minimize their visual impact. For instance, towers for transmission lines in the Central Riverfront were previously designed as large-scale pieces of art to add to the urban visual interest of that area. The City will evaluate and, if feasible, pursue relocation away from the river any high voltage transmission line that exists along the river. All electrical, telephone, and cable television lines in the Critical Area should eventually be located underground when technically feasible . If overhead placement of utilities is necessary, utility crossings must be hidden from view as much as practicable. The appearance of structures must be as compatible as practicable with the surrounding area in a natural state with regard to height and width, materials used, and color (Minnesota Rules 61016.0130 Subpart 6)

### Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Freestanding and building mounted wind energy conversion systems are prohibited by the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance in the Shoreland and Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay districts.

### Solar Energy Systems
Solar Energy Systems are allowed by the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance. Larger scale building-mounted or freestanding systems could have a visual impact and are discouraged from locating in PRCVs. Where no reasonable alternative exists, they should be reduced in scale and scope and landscaped and screened from view of the river (to the extent that it does not block solar access).

### Drinking Water System
The City uses the Mississippi River as the primary drinking water supply source. The Minneapolis Public Works water treatment and distribution facility is located in the City of Fridley on the east bank adjacent and north of the Minneapolis city limits.

### Sanitary Sewer System
The City’s sewer system was originally built as a combined system, to carry both sanitary sewage and storm water runoff. As the community grew, the normal volume of sewage also increased. The Minneapolis system conveys wastewater to the sewer interceptor pipes owned and operated by the Metropolitan Council. Minneapolis has worked for many years to separate its sanitary and storm

<!-- page 429 -->
sewer systems so that during periods of heavy rain,
sewage is no longer discharged into the river. The City of
Minneapolis and the Metropolitan Council continue to
work on removing clear water (inflow/infiltration) from their
systems. The Water Resources Management Plan is an
appendix to the Comprehensive Plan.

### Future Land Use
**Figures 7-13** and **7-14** show where the Minneapolis 2040
production and distribution land uses category is mapped
in the MRCCA. Although the zoning code has not yet been
updated to reflect Minneapolis 2040, it is anticipated that
these are areas that would allow major public service and
utility uses.

<!-- page 430 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-11: UPPER RIVER - EXISTING UTILITIES.**

<!-- page 431 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-12: CENTRAL RIVER - EXISTING UTILITIES.**

<!-- page 432 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-13: UPPER RIVER - MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION GUIDED LAND.**

<!-- page 433 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7-14: CENTRAL RIVER - MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION GUIDED LAND.**

<!-- page 434 -->
# Chapter 8 - Surface Water and Water Oriented Uses

Surface water uses include recreational boat traffic, barge fleeting and commercial riverboat tours. Water-oriented uses include parks, scenic overlooks, observation platforms, docks, fishing piers, water access ramps, marinas, and boathouses. Surface water and water oriented uses have economic benefits, but may cause negative impacts such as riverbank erosion. In addition, there could also be noise or visual impacts depending on the scale of the use. There could also be conflicts between motorized and non-motorized craft or other river uses.

The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 closed the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock to navigation in June of 2015. Because of this closure commercial barge traffic no longer occurs on the Mississippi in Minneapolis. Larger recreational craft or river tour boats can still utilize the Lower St. Anthony Falls Lock to access the central river area, but can no longer reach the upper river. Smaller recreational craft can still operate on the upper and lower areas of the river in Minneapolis, but cannot pass between those two areas.

Currently the city does not have a good inventory of surface water uses or an ordinance specific to surface water uses. The City of Minneapolis will cooperate and work with St. Paul, other affected municipalities, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Government in developing regulations for watercraft surface uses on the Mississippi River. Water-oriented uses are regulated by the zoning ordinance.

# Chapter 9 - Key Issues and Opportunities

### HEAVY INDUSTRY

In the 1800’s the central river developed with industries that utilized power from the falls. Lumber and flour milling were the predominant industries; both dependent on the falls for power. In later years as the lumber milling industry grew, it moved northward into North Minneapolis along the river and was supplanted by flour milling in the central river area. However, by 1919 the last sawmill on the river closed. Scrap yards became a predominant land use in parts of the upper river starting in the 1920s. Gravel storage and other industrial uses located in the central river as flower milling declined. The Lower St Anthony Falls Lock and Dam was completed in 1956, the Upper Lock in 1963 (moving the head of commercial navigation on the Mississippi River to the upper river), and the City opened the Upper Harbor Terminal in 1968.

Despite the efforts to move commercial navigation and industrial development to the upper river, Minneapolis historically has played a limited role in complex manufacturing. Rather, the City’s original purpose was bulk materials processing – sawing logs and milling wheat. The capital accumulated by these early industries was subsequently reinvested, transforming the City’s economy away from industry to other uses including office and high-technology businesses. The heavy industrial role of the river has diminished greatly with the advent of transportation alternatives, the loss of grain and lumber milling, the abandonment of direct water power, and the elimination of barge traffic.

Many millions of dollars of private and public investment have been invested in the central and upper river areas since industrial uses have declined. City of Minneapolis policies reflect recognition of the river’s changing role and seek further benefits by improving it as a natural, cultural, and recreational resource. Consequently, many plans prepared by the City and the MPRB over the past

<!-- page 435 -->
four decades have emphasized the reclaimed river as an economic catalyst for economic development.

While non-residential uses are still appropriate in areas of the upper river (as directed by the comprehensive plan and other small area plans) the trend will continue to move away from heavy industrial to cleaner job intensive production and processing uses, housing, mixed-use development, or parkland.

### UPPER HARBOR TERMINAL OPPORTUNITY
Located along the Mississippi River in North Minneapolis, generally between the Lowry Avenue and Camden bridges, the Upper Harbor Terminal (UHT) site is the largest remaining single-owner development opportunity along the River in Minneapolis. It is an approximately 48-acre parcel of land owned by the City of Minneapolis. It operated since the 1960s as an inter-modal barge shipping terminal, but ceased operating as a barge terminal after the closure of the locks at St. Anthony Falls in 2014. The redevelopment goal is to transform the site from its historic use as a barge shipping terminal to a combination of riverfront park amenities and private development. Further, the UHT project also provides the opportunity to implement many of the goals of the MRCCA plan.

To facilitate this goal, the City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board (MPRB) have completed a request for qualification process and selected a development team to work with them to pursue redevelopment of the City-owned Upper Harbor Terminal (UHT) site in North Minneapolis. Details regarding this process can be found at: http://upperharbormpls.com

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 436 -->
# Chapter 10 – Policies

The following policies are intended to guide development and other activities in the MRCCA. They are not a comprehensive list of every regulation, policy, plan or study that would be applicable in the MRCCA. The policies found in Minneapolis 2040 and other adopted plans apply in the MRCCA.

### General
* Maximize public access to and enjoyment of the river corridor, public appreciation of the river’s many resources, and protection and enhancement of the river corridor’s natural, scenic, and cultural resources.
* Protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional resource to benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the residents for the state, region, and nation.
* Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this state, regional, and national resource.
* Preserve and enhance its natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historic values for the public use.
* Protect and preserve the river as an essential element in the national, state, and regional transportation, water, and recreational systems.
* Protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the corridor.
* Work with the MPRB to create a continuous parkway system (or open space) along both sides of the river.

### Districts and Land Use
* Appropriate land use is as guided by the comprehensive plan.
* Land uses should relate to their riverfront location in a manner that enhances the river environment. Land uses that are considered river enhancing will vary depending on location and context and as guided by adopted plans.
* Land use or activities which would have detrimental effects on a high quality river environment should not be allowed to locate or expand within the MRCCA.
* In general, structures within the Critical Area should be shorter when located closer to the river with height increasing as distance from the river increases. However, taller buildings can be considered closer to the river when the existing built character is similar or where measures are taken to provide significant landscaping and buffering of the structure. In addition, buildings should utilize tapered profiles as building height increases to allow views of and from the river and to avoid overly wide buildings that can create a wall along the riverfront significantly blocking views for other structures, development sites, and neighborhoods
* Physical development is regulated by the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance to implement this plan and in accordance with the MRCCA rules.

## PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS
### General
Protect Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) and minimize impact to PCAs from public and private development and land use activities.

Support mitigation of impacts to PCAs through the City’s development review process (conditional use permits, site plan review, subdivisions, PUDs, variances, and other permits).
* Restoration of removed Native Plant Communities and natural vegetation in riparian areas is a high priority during development.
* Support alternative design standards that protect the identified PCAs, such as conservation design, transfer of development density, or other zoning and site design techniques that achieve better protections or restoration of primary conservation areas.
* Use permanent protection measures (such as public acquisition, conservation easement, deed restrictions, etc.) to protect PCAs.

### Shore Impact Zone (SIZ)
* Structures and impervious surfaces must not be located in the SIZ and must meet the setback requirement from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River as specified for each district, except as otherwise allowed by the MRCCA Rules and the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance.

<!-- page 437 -->
• Where construction is allowed by the MRCCA rules and Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance, the activity should limit disturbance to minor grading and selective tree removal to the extent possible. New construction should appear as natural as possible through the use of design treatments, landscape treatments, and vegetative screening.
• Shoreline and native plants restoration is encouraged.

### Floodplains and Wetlands
• The City will continue to implement its floodplain ordinance to guide development and redevelopment.
• The exact boundaries of any floodway or flood fringe will be determined by consulting the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Boundary (FEMA) and Floodway Map and comparing it to a topographic survey prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City.
• Where the City or Watershed Management Organizations have flood elevation data or other relevant information that is more current that the adopted FEMA maps, it should be utilized to guide development decisions by comparing it to a topographic survey prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City.
• Wetlands will be protected by adherence to state and federal wetland rules and procedures

### Natural Drainage Ways
• Natural drainage ways that empty into the Mississippi River will be protected through the City’s Shoreland Overlay Ordinance, Stormwater Management Ordinance, Erosion Control Ordinance, and other relevant regulations and policies.

### Bluffs and Bluff Impact Zones (BIZ)
• Structures and impervious surfaces must not be located in the BIZ and must meet the setback requirement from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River as specified for each district, except as otherwise allowed by the MRCCA Rules and the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance.
• The BIZ should be protected in its natural state (or restored with natural vegetation) New land disturbance along the bluff face is prohibited, except as otherwise allowed by the MRCCA Rules and the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance.
• Where construction is allowed by the MRCCA rules and Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance, the activity should limit disturbance to minor grading and selective tree removal to the extent possible. New construction should appear as natural as possible through the use of design treatments, landscape treatments, and vegetative screening. Development shall comply with the Stormwater and Erosion Control Ordinances.
• Renovation or maintenance of existing parkways or trails or short connections of existing parkways and existing roads running down the bluff to the river (all of which are public) may be maintained in conformance with the MRCCA rules and Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance.
• Construction of new parkway segments which connect existing parkways may be permitted within the BIZ when no other alternative exists.
• The degree of slope on any proposed development site in the MRCCA will be determined through a topographic survey prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City.

### Native Plant Communities and Significant Vegetative Stands
• Removal of native plant communities or significant vegetative stands (See Chapter 3, Figures 3-15 through 3-17 and Appendix B for locations) in the Critical Area Corridor is prohibited, except as otherwise allowed by the MRCCA Rules and the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance and shall be done in conformance with the policies of this plan.
• Removal of vegetation, where allowed, shall expose the smallest practical area of soil for the least practical amount of time and protective erosion and sediment control measures shall be used.
• Development should be located in such a manner as to minimize the removal of vegetation and the alteration of natural topography.
• Development shall be located to preserve the natural features of the site and to preserve significant trees or plant communities (including remnant stands of native

<!-- page 438 -->
trees or prairie grasses or plant communities that are rare to the area or of particular value). To the extent possible, trees with a diameter at breast height of 12 inches or larger shall be preserved.
* Clear cutting, the removal of an entire stand of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, is prohibited except as necessary for native plant restoration, removal of invasive species, or for development allowed by the MRCCA Rules and the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance, and when consistent with policies of this plan.
* Cutting of noxious, invasive, and exotic plants is allowed.
* The removal of invasive plant species and replacement with native plantings is encouraged.
* Selective removal of natural vegetation may be allowed, provided that sufficient vegetative cover remains to screen cars, dwellings, and other structures when viewed from the water.
* Where there is no feasible or prudent alternative to cutting trees on a site, tree density and ground cover should be restored to native vegetation appropriate to the ecology of the site.
* After any construction project is completed, natural vegetation shall be restored to the extent feasible to minimize surface runoff, soil erosion, and to provide screening.
* Adequate erosion protection measures such as trees and vegetation plantings on slopes shall be used to ensure that soil loss levels do not degrade the receiving water body.
* Where appropriate, trees and other native vegetation appropriate to the ecology of the site should be used to improve the appearance of the river corridor.
* Where appropriate, vegetation may be selectively pruned to increase visual contact with the river and to open up key scenic views except that such pruning shall not significantly alter the character or massing of the vegetation.
* Significant or unique vegetation such as native plant communities or remnant plant communities should be identified and preserved for educational, historic, and scenic values.

* The MPRB will continue to improve natural habitat and native vegetation along the shoreline, reduce soil erosion, and implement practices on its lands that minimize stormwater runoff and protect surface waters.
* The City will protect, manage, and maintain City-owned vegetated lands in the Critical Area, including publicly-owned embankments.
* The City will work with the MPRB and other partner agencies and organizations to encourage and support restoration of native plant communities, use of native plants for landscaping, and preservation of large beneficial tree species in the corridor.

### Cultural and Historic Properties
* The City will continue to implement its heritage preservation plans, policies, and ordinance.
* The City will continue to coordinate with the St. Anthony Falls Heritage Board on interpretation of the history of the St. Anthony Falls Heritage Zone.

### Lower Gorge
* In the Lower Gorge the predominant visual feature should be trees and bluffs. That district should continue to be managed to preserve and enhance those natural scenic qualities.
* In the Lower Gorge, the natural character of the wooded bluffs and shoreline will be preserved and enhanced while the public recreational experience is improved.

### Land Disturbance Including Unstable Soils and Bedrock
* The City will work to control erosion through use of its regulatory tools including the zoning ordinance, erosion control and stormwater management ordinances, as well as other applicable ordinances and regulations. Compliance with all City ordinances and regulations are required for any improvements made by the MPRB.
* Development should be suited to the site and to the soil conditions.
* Erosion protection measures should make maximum use of natural in-place vegetation and additional planting of new native vegetation rather than the use of artificial devices on site as erosion control measures.

<!-- page 439 -->
* Development shall minimize runoff and should not cause erosion, increase the net surface runoff rate, or decrease the net rate of storm water absorption on the site.
* The rate of runoff from parking lots, roads, bridges and trails near the bluffline will be minimized and controlled to prevent erosion. Techniques may include detaining water in a parking lot or creating a detention or retention facilities.
* Required erosion control measures should be maintained before, during, and after construction to ensure that gross soil loss levels do not degrade adjacent water bodies or water courses. Construction shall be sequenced to minimize the exposure of slopes to runoff and potential erosion. Implement phased erosion/sedimentation BMPs as needed. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized within 14 days. The MPCA Stormwater Manual shall be used as a guide for construction site best management practices.
* Artificial devices such as retaining walls should be allowed only as a last resort after consideration of all other best management practices such as native vegetative or bioengineering solutions for the sake of minimizing slope and erosion problems.

### PUBLIC RIVER CORRIDOR VIEWS (PRCVS)
* PRCVs illustrated in this plan are not intended to be a blanket prohibition on all development in every instance where they are identified. The policies, goals, and information listed in the plan inform how to balance development and PRCVs.
* Protect and minimize impacts to PRCVs from public and private development activities.
* Protect and minimize impacts to PRCVs from public and private vegetation management activities.
* Protect PRCVs located within the community and identified by other communities (adjacent or across the river).
* River corridor development should be located and designed to minimize adverse effects on the natural or scenic views of the river.
* The City will prevent development that has a significant negative impact on key scenic views and encourages design which preserves, enhances, or creates key scenic views.
* Development should implement the visual quality goals of this plan (see Chapter 4).
* Development along the river should encourage reconnections of the traditional street grid pattern (some of the connections may be only pedestrian and bike connections) where that would enhance visual and physical connections to and from the river.
* The scenic quality of the shorelines should be improved by high quality urban design and site planning.
* The scenic quality of the shorelines should be improved by minimizing parking and outdoor storage of materials.
* Encourage and facilitate the rehabilitation or removal of obsolete and visually blighted structures.
* The City will strive to maintain views to and from the river by providing overlooks, river corridor parks, and view corridors between river corridor buildings. View should favor up or downstream vistas whenever possible for longer views of the river.
* Scenic overlooks and the associated improvements (signs, kiosks, etc.,) should be chosen and located so that they do not interfere with or obstruct key scenic views.
* Existing scenic overlooks should be marked and maintained by pruning for the health of the vegetation, removal of noxious exotic species, addition of native species that have mature heights which are below the sight line of the overlooks and as a last resort, selective cutting of vegetation to maintain views of the river.

### RESTORATION PRIORITIES
* Protect native and existing vegetation during the development process, and require restoration if any is removed by development. Priorities for restoration shall include stabilization of erodible soils and riparian buffers and bluffs or steep slopes visible from the river.
* Restore native vegetation to protect and enhance public river view corridors identified in this plan where possible.
* Restore vegetation in restoration priority areas identified in this plan through the City’s development review process (conditional use permits, site plan review, subdivisions, PUDs, variances, and other permits).

<!-- page 440 -->
* Seek opportunities to restore native vegetation in areas where vegetative cover is not present.
* The removal of invasive plant species and replacement with native plantings is encouraged.
* Sustain and enhance ecological functions (habitat value) during vegetation restorations.
* Pollinator and wildlife friendly native plantings are encouraged.
* Evaluate proposed development sites for erosion prevention and bank and slope stabilization issues and require restoration as part of the development process.

## OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
### General
* Encourage creation, connection, and maintenance of open space and recreational facilities, including public access to the river.
* Identify and encourage connection of CA-SR district land to existing and planned parks and trails.
* Encourage that land dedication requirements be used where appropriate to acquire land suitable for public river access.
* The Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park should continue to improve its open space appropriate to an urban setting.
* In the Lower Gorge, the natural character of the wooded bluffs and shoreline will be preserved and enhanced while the public recreational experience is improved.
* Recreational activities on and along the Mississippi River should capitalize on the recreational opportunities that are river-oriented and compatible with the surrounding environment. Current recreation includes biking, walking, canoeing, boating, sight-seeing, historic interpretation, eating and drinking, picnicking and bird-watching.
* Active sports, especially those requiring highly delineated spaces and hard surfaces in which participants are not aware of the surrounding environment, should not be encouraged along the river’s edge.
* Because of conflicts with boat traffic, river currents, and the fact that more appropriate water facilities are available, swimming, sailing, and ice skating are discouraged.
* Fishing should be encouraged along the river in designated areas which do not conflict with other recreation or transportation uses and when state water quality standards permit.
* Sculling, rowing, kayaking, and canoeing are encouraged everywhere in the River. Between Hennepin Avenue and I-35W consideration should be given to the activities can be done safely, due the falls and the lower lock and dam, before they are allowed.

### Parkways
* A continuous parkway and trail corridor parallel to and along both sides of the Mississippi River should continue to be completed where possible to provide recreational opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
* Although the parkway may vary in distance from the riverbank in some areas, it should provide clear site lines to the river and river-related activities whenever feasible.
* In the upper river, the parkway should be extended along the west side from Plymouth Avenue to Webber Parkway near the Camden Bridge. This parkway may weave away from the riverfront where it is impractical to build near the river, or where guided by adopted plans.
* In the upper river, on the east side, Marshall Street NE may be improved with greatly improved sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Since Marshall Street NE would not be an element of the parkway system, it would continue to carry truck traffic.
* Redevelopment of the Upper Harbor Terminal may also result in a shared road or parkway that may allow truck traffic.

### Trails
* Park and Trail Land Acquisition - As funding becomes available, the MPRB will acquire land for new river corridor parks or trails through purchase or dedication based on a comprehensive park system plan. Easements for public movement along the river’s edge or from neighborhoods to the riverfront will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Public ownership of river corridor

<!-- page 441 -->
park land is preferred over an easement. When property is subdivided, the City may require the subdivider to dedicate to the City either land (if the location is at a planned park) or cash in lieu of land, as provided by adopted ordinances.

* Regional trails in the City will serve transportation and recreation by providing access to major parks, linking those parks, and offering multipurpose trail activities such as bicycling, hiking, and cross country skiing. The bicycle paths along the Mississippi River should be linked to the regional system at the northern and southern ends, and via the Bassett Creek Trail, St. Anthony Parkway, the Franklin and 46th Street bridges, the Midtown Greenway, Minnehaha Parkway, and other lateral connections. They should be connected to the street network where appropriate.
* Trail routing should take advantage of natural features such as rivers, streams, and creeks or man-made features such as utility easements or railroad rights-of-way.
* Pedestrian, bicycle, and motor routes should be separated wherever feasible with the pedestrian path located nearest to the river, then the bicycle path, then the road.
* “Points of particular interest” or “nodes” should be developed along the river at points where adjacent neighborhoods have lateral entry to the river, to provide focal points or interesting stopping points along the way, and to provide parklands for recreation purposes.
* Wherever feasible, lateral access routes to the river should be developed in the upper river and central river areas to provide adjacent neighborhoods with physical and visual access. Vacation of public right-of-way that has the potential to provide, connect, or enhance these lateral routes is discouraged.
* There should be continuous bicyclist and pedestrian paths along both sides of the Upper River across parkland or, in limited instances, public easements.
* Access also should be added on the east bank to connect existing Main Street to East River Parkway at the University of Minnesota.
* In the lower gorge, pedestrian and bicycle trails should generally follow the East and West River Parkways with looped pedestrian trails at East River Flats, East and West Sand Flats, and Riverside Park to connect the upper bluffs with the lower shoreline.

## TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES

* Minimize impacts to PCAs and PRCVs from solar and wind generation facilities, public transportation facilities, and public utilities.
* New or modified transportation facilities shall complement the planned land and water uses and shall not stimulate development incompatible with river uses. In planning and designing construction or reconstruction of public transportation facilities in the corridor, consideration shall be given to safe pedestrian crossings and facilities along the corridor, access to the riverfront in public ownership, provision of scenic overlooks, and reasonable use of land between the river and the transportation facility.
* Streets and Roads- The City and the MPRB will minimize creating roads, including parkways, that would be visible from the river surface or that would interfere with enjoyment of the river. Any road improvements will observe the policies of this plan for protection of vegetation, water quality, wildlife habitat, views to and from the river, public access to the riverfront, erosion control, and public open space.
* Bridges - Bridges are the most highly visible structures along the river. Additional river bridges should be discouraged. Historic bridge structures should be retained. Any changes to existing river bridges or streets near the river should be designed to enhance the scenic and historic qualities of the river corridor. The City will support replacement bridge designs that add to the aesthetic environment of the river. Bridge improvements should improve multi-modal access across the bridges, as there are limited opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the river.
* Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - The City will continue to improve pedestrian and bicyclist movement to and along the river.

<!-- page 442 -->
* Vacations of City right-of-way are discouraged as they may be used for future pedestrian and bicycle facilities to and along the river.
* Railroad Lines - The City will encourage duplicative or unneeded lines to be consolidated whenever possible. When tracks are abandoned, the MRPB will acquire (to the extent funding is available) for public trails or other public open space needs those it has targeted for possible acquisition through a system plan, particularly river bridges. The City will continue to monitor track abandonment and work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to acquire targeted corridors.
* Railroad and Truck Terminal Locations - The City will continue to encourage the relocation of major freight shipping facilities out of the MRCCA to reduce conflict with other activities in the river corridor.
* Drinking Water Source - The City will continue to use the Mississippi River as the primary drinking water supply source.
* Upstream Treatment - The City will protect the quality of the raw water supply by supporting local and state efforts to improve the water quality of any point and non-point discharges.
* Water Conservation and Supply Plans - The City will continue to implement its plan for water conservation and alternative supply sources so as to reduce the need for treatment plant expansion and to guard against low river water flows during droughts.
* Sewer Separation - The City will continue to work to entirely separate sanitary sewers and surface water drainage sewers.
* Infiltration and Inflow - The City will maintain its sanitary sewers in such a condition so as to minimize infiltration of groundwater.
* Water Quality Management - The City will take measures to protect the quality of water flowing into the Mississippi River. At a minimum, the City’s Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Ordinances will be used to regulate site development and watershed management. The City will continue to work with the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization to study the need for additional or different regulations.

* Flood Control - The City will implement floodplain controls so that new construction does not occur in areas of the City subject to periodic, localized flooding.
* High Voltage Transmission Lines - The City, in conjunction with Xcel Energy, will strongly discourage any new corridors for high voltage transmission lines to run parallel to or, especially, across the river. Necessary river crossings should be designed and located to minimize their visual impact. For instance, towers for transmission lines in the Central Riverfront were previously designed as large-scale pieces of art and actually add to the urban visual interest of that area. The City will evaluate and, if feasible, pursue relocation away from the river any high voltage transmission line that exists along the river. All electrical, telephone, and cable television lines in the Critical Area should eventually be located underground when technically feasible.
* It is recognized that power plants and electric lines provide a necessary service; while existing plants should be allowed to continue to operate, significant expansion should be discouraged.
* Electrical lines under 220 kilovolts will continue to be regulated under existing ordinances. Those regulations identify a number of considerations that must be taken into account in locating electrical lines including the potential for erosion and decreased water quality, visual impact (including the potential for locating them underground), ability to consolidate crossings, and limiting the chemical control of vegetation in the utility right-of-way.

### SURFACE WATER USES AND WATER ORIENTED USES

* The City of Minneapolis will cooperate and work with Saint Paul, other affected municipalities, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Government in developing regulations for surface watercraft uses on the Mississippi River.
* Water-oriented uses will be regulated by the MRCCA Rules and the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance in conformance

<!-- page 443 -->
with the goals of this plan, the comprehensive plan, and other adopted plans.
* The City and the MPRB will continue to evaluate opportunities to create boat launches, docks, and marinas on the Mississippi River.
* Seek to balance commercial and recreational surface water uses.
* Minimize potential conflict of water-oriented uses with other land uses.

### Other Environmental
* Developments are required to comply with the city’s Stormwater Management Ordinance and are encouraged to make environmentally friendly steps on their properties to reduce their stormwater management fees.
* The City will continue to work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to achieve federal and state water quality standards. The City will continue to enforce along the river corridor as well as the balance of the community its adopted standards for the National Urban Runoff Program and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program.
* The City will continue to license underground oil and chemical tanks and continue its efforts to remediate contaminated sites throughout the City. In addition, the City will continue to require the reporting of oil and chemical spills and to clean up spills and assist with the disposal of waste which might pollute ground and surface waters. Existing control and review mechanisms to prevent contamination of public waters and erosion by surface runoff will continue.
* Dredge Material - Dredged material may be placed on the beaches along the river only in an emergency dredging situation or in response to development by the Corps of Engineers of a recreation beach management plan that is approved by its partner agencies.

### St. Anthony Falls
* Every effort should be made to maintain St. Anthony Falls for aesthetic, recreation, and historical appreciation, after minimum flow requirements for public water supplies are met.
* Future alterations may be allowed which enhance aesthetic and recreational potential while being respectful of historic import.
* Prior to approval, proposals which would affect water flow should be reviewed and approved as applicable by the Metropolitan Council, Minneapolis City Council, MRPB, the Department of Natural Resources Public Waters and Appropriations Permits Program, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

<!-- page 444 -->
# Chapter 11 – Implementation Actions

The implementations steps listed below, including permitting requirements, are required by the MRCCA Rules, Metropolitan Council, and DNR.

### General
* Submit the updated MRCCA plan to the Metropolitan Council and the DNR at the same time that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update is due to the Metropolitan Council.
* Update the Zoning Ordinance, including the Shoreland and Critical Area Overlay Districts, to reflect goals and policies of this plan as well as any relevant requirements of federal and state legislation.
* Ensure that information on the new MRCCA districts, zoning requirements, PCAs, PRCVs, and restoration priorities, are available to property owners to help them understand which ordinance requirements apply to their property for project planning and permitting.
* The City of Minneapolis will continue to coordinate with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the City of St. Paul, and other applicable agencies in efforts to manage the resources of the river gorge.
* Continue to work on integration of the adopted plans and policies of the multiple jurisdictions with authority in the MRCCA.
* Evaluate implementation flexibility, as allowed by Minnesota Rules 6106.0070, Subp. 6, related to height and tiering requirements in the CA-UC and CA-UM districts during ordinance drafting and approval.

### Districts
* Amend the MR Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay District compliant with the goals and policies of the MRCCA plan and with Minnesota Rules, part 6106.0070, Subp. 5 - Content of Ordinances.
* Update the zoning map to reflect new MRCCA districts.

### Primary Conservation Areas
* Establish procedures and criteria for processing applications with potential impacts to PCAs, including identification of the information that must be submitted and how it will be evaluated, determining the appropriate mitigation procedures and methods for variances and CUPs, and establishing evaluation criteria for protecting PCAs when a development site contains multiple types of PCAs and the total area of those PCAs exceed the required set aside percentages.
* Develop administrative procedures for integrating DNR and local permitting of riprap, walls and other hard armoring.

### Public River Corridor Views (PRCVs)
* Establish procedures for processing applications with potential impacts to PRCVs, including the identification of the information that must be submitted and how it will be evaluated and developing standards for conditional use permits and variances for additional height where allowed by the MRCCA rules and the Minneapolis Zoning Ordinance.
* Determine appropriate mitigation procedures and methods for conditional use permits and variances.

### Restoration Priorities
* Establish a vegetation permitting process that includes permit review procedures to ensure consideration of restoration priorities identified in this plan in permit issuance, as well as standard conditions requiring vegetation restoration for those priority areas.
* Establish a process for evaluating priorities for natural vegetation restoration, erosion prevention and bank and slope stabilization, or other restoration priorities identified in this plan for the development review processes

### Open Space and Recreation Facilities
* Continue system for reviewing, tracking, and monitoring open space dedication required as part of the subdivision process. https://www.minneapolisparks.org/park_care__improvements/park_dedication/

<!-- page 445 -->
**Transportation and Public Utilities**

*   Incorporate specific design and placement conditions that minimize impacts to PCAs and PRCVs into local permits for solar and wind generation facilities and essential and transmission services.

**Surface Water and Water Oriented Uses**

*   Evaluate the need for adoption of surface water use regulations authorized under Minn. Statute, Chapter 86B (MR 6110.3000 – 6110.3800).
*   Provide for water-oriented uses in the zoning ordinance.
*   Develop an inventory of surface water uses and water oriented uses for inclusion in the MRCCA Plan

<!-- page 446 -->
# Attachment A

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6106 (MRCCA Rules)

<!-- page 447 -->
# CHAPTER 6106
## DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
### MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

6106.0010 POLICY.
6106.0020 PURPOSE; DESIGNATION.
6106.0030 SCOPE; OTHER LAW.
6106.0050 DEFINITIONS.
6106.0060 ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM.
6106.0070 PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND ORDINANCES.
6106.0080 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR ORDINANCES.
6106.0090 INCORPORATIONS BY REFERENCE.
6106.0100 DISTRICTS.
6106.0110 USES.
6106.0120 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS.
6106.0130 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES.
6106.0140 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE FACILITIES.
6106.0150 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.
6106.0160 LAND ALTERATION AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.
6106.0170 SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
6106.0180 EXEMPTIONS FROM SETBACKS, HEIGHT LIMITS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

### 6106.0010 POLICY.

It is in the interest of present and future generations to preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, economic, recreational, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River corridor within the Twin Cities metropolitan area and protect its environmentally sensitive areas. In furtherance of the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 116G, 394, 462, and 473, this chapter provides standards and criteria for the preservation, protection, and management of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0020 PURPOSE; DESIGNATION.

The minimum standards and criteria in this chapter are provided for the subdivision, use, and development of land within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, established pursuant to United States Code, title 16, section 460k, which is designated the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, according to the purposes described under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15, subdivision 1.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

<!-- page 448 -->
### 6106.0030 SCOPE; OTHER LAW.

Subpart 1. **Applicability.** The standards and criteria established in this chapter for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area pertain to public waters and to nonfederal public land and private lands within the river corridor boundary.

Subp. 2. **Government actions.** The state and all local governments, including councils, commissions, boards, districts, departments, and all other public authorities, must exercise their powers to further the purposes of this chapter.

Subp. 3. **State land.** Land owned by the state and its agencies and subdivisions must be administered according to this chapter.

Subp. 4. **Conflicting standards.** In case of a conflict between this chapter and any other rule or ordinance, the more protective provision applies.

Subp. 5. **Superseding standards.** Specific standards found in this chapter supersede parts 4410.8100 to 4410.9910 for management of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0050 DEFINITIONS.

Subpart 1. **Scope of terms and measurement of distances.** For the purposes of this chapter, the terms used have the meanings given in this part. All distances, unless otherwise specified, are measured horizontally.

Subp. 2. **Access path.** "Access path" means an area designated to provide ingress and egress to public waters.

Subp. 3. **Adjacent.** "Adjacent" means having a boundary that physically touches or adjoins.

Subp. 4. **Agricultural use.** "Agricultural use" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 40A.02.

Subp. 5. **Alternative design.** "Alternative design" means subdivision design methods such as conservation design, transfer of development density, or similar zoning and site design techniques that protect open space and natural areas.

Subp. 6. **Barge fleeting.** "Barge fleeting" means temporarily parking and securing barges on the river, on or off channel, while tows are assembled or broken up.

Subp. 7. **Biological and ecological functions.** "Biological and ecological functions" means the functions of vegetation in stabilizing soils and slopes, retaining and filtering runoff, providing habitat, and recharging groundwater.

Subp. 8. **Bluff.** "Bluff" means a natural topographic feature having:

A. a slope that rises at least 25 feet and the grade of the slope averages 18 percent or greater, measured over a horizontal distance of 25 feet, as follows:

(1) where the slope begins above the ordinary high water level, from the toe of the slope to the top of the slope; or

<!-- page 449 -->
(2) where the slope begins below the ordinary high water level, from the ordinary high water level to the top of the slope. See Figure 1; or

B. a natural escarpment or cliff with a slope that rises at least ten feet above the ordinary high water level or toe of the slope, whichever is applicable, to the top of the slope, with a slope of 75 degrees or greater.

Subp. 9. **Bluff impact zone.** "Bluff impact zone" means the bluff and land within 20 feet of the bluff. See Figure 1.

<<FIGURE>>

Subp. 10. **Bluffline.** "Bluffline" means a line delineating the top of the bluff. More than one bluffline may be encountered proceeding landward from the river. See also subpart 9, Figure 1, and subpart 78, "top of the bluff."

Subp. 11. **Buildable area.** "Buildable area" means the area upon which structures may be placed on a lot or parcel of land and excludes land areas needed to meet requirements for setback, rights-of-way, bluff impact zones, historic properties, wetlands, designated floodways, land below the ordinary high water level of public waters, and other areas restricted from development by local ordinance.

Subp. 12. **Building.** "Building" means a structure with two or more outside rigid walls and a fully secured roof and affixed to a permanent site.

Subp. 13. **Certificate of compliance.** "Certificate of compliance" means a document, written after a compliance inspection, certifying that the development is in compliance with applicable requirements at the time of the inspection.

Subp. 14. **Commissioner.** "Commissioner" means the commissioner of natural resources.

Subp. 15. **Conditional use.** "Conditional use" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 394.22.

<!-- page 450 -->
# 6106.0050 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

Subp. 16. **Conservation design.** "Conservation design" means a pattern of subdivision that is characterized by grouping lots within a portion of a parcel, where the remaining portion of the parcel is permanently protected as open space.

Subp. 17. **Conventional subdivision.** "Conventional subdivision" means a pattern of subdivision that is characterized by lots that are spread regularly throughout a parcel in a lot and block design.

Subp. 18. **Deck.** "Deck" means a horizontal, unenclosed, aboveground level structure open to the sky, with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site.

Subp. 19. **Developer.** "Developer" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.03.

Subp. 20. **Development.** "Development" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.03.

Subp. 21. **Discretionary action.** "Discretionary action" means an action under this chapter related to land use that requires a public hearing by local ordinance or statute, such as preliminary plats, final subdivision plats, planned unit developments, conditional use permits, interim use permits, variances, appeals, and rezonings.

Subp. 22. **Dock.** "Dock" has the meaning given under part 6115.0170.

Subp. 23. **Electric power facilities.** "Electric power facilities" means equipment and associated facilities for generating electric power as identified and defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 216E.01, and devices for converting wind energy to electrical energy.

Subp. 24. **Essential services.** "Essential services" means underground or overhead gas, electrical, communications, steam, or water distribution, collection, supply, or disposal systems, including storm water. Essential services includes poles, wires, mains, drains, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, navigational structures, aviation safety facilities, or other similar equipment and accessories in conjunction with the systems. Essential services does not include buildings, treatment works as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 115.01, electric power facilities, or transmission services.

Subp. 25. **Feedlot.** "Feedlot" has the meaning given for animal feedlot under part 7020.0300.

Subp. 26. **Floodplain.** "Floodplain" has the meaning given under part 6120.5000.

Subp. 27. **Hard-surface trail.** "Hard-surface trail" means a trail surfaced in asphalt, crushed aggregate, or other hard surface, for multipurpose use, as determined by local, regional, or state agency plans.

Subp. 28. **Historic property.** "Historic property" means an archaeological site, standing structure, site, district, or other property that is:

A. listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Places or locally designated as a historic site under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 471;

B. determined to meet the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Places; or

C. an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 307, in consultation with the Office of the State Archeologist.

<!-- page 451 -->
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA 6106.0050

Subp. 29. **Impervious surface.** "Impervious surface" means a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development. Examples are rooftops, decks, sidewalks, patios, parking lots, storage areas, roads, and driveways, including those with concrete, asphalt, or gravel surfaces.

Subp. 30. **Intensive vegetation clearing.** "Intensive vegetation clearing" means removal of all or a majority of the trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block.

Subp. 31. **Interim use.** "Interim use" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, sections 394.303 and 462.3597.

Subp. 32. **Land alteration.** "Land alteration" means an activity that exposes the soil or changes the topography, drainage, or cross section of the land, excluding gardening or similar minor soil disturbances.

Subp. 33. **Local government.** "Local government" means counties, cities, and townships.

Subp. 34. **Local park agencies.** "Local park agencies" means the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and the Three Rivers Park District.

Subp. 35. **Lot.** "Lot" has the meaning given under part 6120.2500.

Subp. 36. **Lot width.** "Lot width" means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at both the ordinary high water level and at the required structure setback from the ordinary high water level.

Subp. 37. **Marina.** "Marina" has the meaning given under chapter 6115.

Subp. 38. **Mooring facility.** "Mooring facility" has the meaning given under part 6115.0170.

Subp. 39. **Native plant community.** "Native plant community" means a plant community that has been identified as part of the Minnesota biological survey or biological survey issued or adopted by a local, state, or federal agency.

Subp. 40. **Natural-surface trail.** "Natural-surface trail" means a trail composed of native soil and rock or compacted granular stone, primarily intended for hiking, equestrian, or mountain bike use, as determined by local, regional, or state agency plans.

Subp. 41. **Natural vegetation.** "Natural vegetation" means any combination of ground cover, understory, and tree canopy that, while it may have been altered by human activity, continues to stabilize soils, retain and filter runoff, provide habitat, and recharge groundwater.

Subp. 42. **Nonconformity.** "Nonconformity" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 394.22.

Subp. 43. **Nonmetallic mining.** "Nonmetallic mining" means construction, reconstruction, repair, relocation, expansion, or removal of any facility for the extraction, stockpiling, storage, disposal, or reclamation of nonmetallic minerals such as stone, sand, and gravel. Nonmetallic mining does not include ancillary facilities such as access roads, bridges, culverts, and water level control structures. For purposes of this subpart, "facility" includes all mine pits, quarries, stockpiles, basins, processing structures and equipment, and any structures that drain or divert public waters to allow mining.

Subp. 44. **Off-premise advertising signs.** "Off-premise advertising signs" means those signs that direct attention to a product, service, business, or entertainment venue that is not exclusively related to the premises where the sign is located.

Subp. 45. **Ordinary high water level.** "Ordinary high water level" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005.

<!-- page 452 -->
# 6106.0050 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

Subp. 46. **Overlay district.** "Overlay district" means a zoning district that is applied over one or more previously established zoning districts, establishing additional or stricter standards and criteria for covered properties in addition to those of the underlying zoning district. Overlay districts are often used to protect historic features and natural resources such as shoreland or floodplain.

Subp. 47. **Parcel.** "Parcel" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.03.

Subp. 48. **Patio.** "Patio" means a constructed hard surface located at ground level with no railings and open to the sky.

Subp. 49. **Picnic shelter.** "Picnic shelter" means a roofed structure open on all sides, accessory to a recreational use.

Subp. 50. **Planned unit development.** "Planned unit development" means a method of land development that merges zoning and subdivision controls, allowing developers to plan and develop a large area as a single entity, characterized by a unified site design, a mix of structure types and land uses, and phasing of development over a number of years. Planned unit development includes any conversion of existing structures and land uses that use this method of development.

Subp. 51. **Plat.** "Plat" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, sections 505.01, subdivision 3, and 515B.2-110.

Subp. 52. **Port.** "Port" means a water transportation complex established and operated under the jurisdiction of a port authority according to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 458.

Subp. 53. **Primary conservation areas.** "Primary conservation areas" means key resources and features, including shore impact zones, bluff impact zones, floodplains, wetlands, gorges, areas of confluence with tributaries, natural drainage routes, unstable soils and bedrock, native plant communities, cultural and historic properties, significant existing vegetative stands, tree canopies, and other resources identified in local government plans.

Subp. 54. **Professional engineer.** "Professional engineer" means an engineer licensed to practice in Minnesota.

Subp. 55. **Public recreational facilities.** "Public recreational facilities" means recreational facilities provided by the state or a local government and dedicated to public use, including parks, scenic overlooks, observation platforms, trails, docks, fishing piers, picnic shelters, water access ramps, and other similar water-oriented public facilities used for recreation.

Subp. 56. **Public river corridor views.** "Public river corridor views" means views toward the river from public parkland, historic properties, and public overlooks, as well as views toward bluffs from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore, as seen during the summer months.

Subp. 57. **Public transportation facilities.** "Public transportation facilities" means all transportation facilities provided by federal, state, or local government and dedicated to public use, such as roadways, transit facilities, railroads, and bikeways.

Subp. 58. **Public utilities.** "Public utilities" means electric power facilities, essential services, and transmission services.

Subp. 59. **Public waters.** "Public waters" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005.

Subp. 60. **Readily visible.** "Readily visible" means land and development that are easily seen from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore during summer months.

<!-- page 453 -->
Subp. 61. **Resource agency.** "Resource agency" means a federal, state, regional, or local agency that engages in environmental, natural, or cultural resource protection or restoration activities, including planning, implementation, and monitoring.

Subp. 62. **Retaining wall.** "Retaining wall" means a vertical or nearly vertical structure constructed of mortar and rubble masonry, rock, or stone regardless of size, vertical timber pilings, horizontal timber planks with piling supports, sheet pilings, poured concrete, concrete blocks, or other durable material.

Subp. 63. **Riprap.** "Riprap" means coarse stones, boulders, cobbles, broken rock or concrete, or brick materials placed or constructed to armor shorelines, streambeds, bridge abutments, pilings, and other shoreline structures against scour or water or ice erosion.

Subp. 64. **River corridor boundary.** "River corridor boundary" means the boundary approved and adopted by the Metropolitan Council under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.06, as approved and adopted by the legislature in Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15, and as legally described in the State Register, volume 3, pages 1681 to 1691.

Subp. 65. **River-dependent use.** "River-dependent use" means the use of land for commercial, industrial, or utility purposes, where access to and use of a public water feature is an integral part of the normal conduct of business and where the use is dependent on shoreline facilities.

Subp. 66. **Selective vegetation removal.** "Selective vegetation removal" means removal of isolated individual trees or shrubs that are not in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block and that does not substantially reduce the tree canopy or understory cover.

Subp. 67. **Setback.** "Setback" means a separation distance measured horizontally.

Subp. 68. **Shore impact zone.** "Shore impact zone" means land located between the ordinary high water level of public waters and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the required structure setback or, for areas in agricultural use, 50 feet landward of the ordinary high water level. See Figure 2.

<!-- page 454 -->
# 6106.0050 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

Figure 2: Shore Impact Zone

<<FIGURE>>

Subp. 69. **Shoreline facilities.** "Shoreline facilities" means facilities that require a location adjoining public waters for ingress and egress, loading and unloading, and water intake and outflow, such as barge facilities, port facilities, commodity loading and unloading equipment, watercraft lifts, marinas, short-term watercraft mooring facilities for patrons, and water access ramps. Structures that would be enhanced by a shoreline location, but do not require a location adjoining public waters as part of their function, are not shoreline facilities, such as restaurants, bait shops, and boat dealerships.

Subp. 70. **Special purpose unit of government.** "Special purpose unit of government" means the University of Minnesota; the St. Paul Port Authority; watershed management organizations established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103B; watershed districts established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103D; and any other unit of government other than those listed in subparts 33 and 71.

<!-- page 455 -->
Subp. 71. **State or regional agency.** "State or regional agency" means the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minnesota Historical Society, University of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Transportation, and Metropolitan Council and other state agencies.

Subp. 72. **Steep slope.** "Steep slope" means a natural topographic feature with an average slope of 12 to 18 percent, measured over a horizontal distance equal to or greater than 50 feet, and any slopes greater than 18 percent that are not bluffs.

Subp. 73. **Storm water.** "Storm water" has the meaning given under part 7090.0080.

Subp. 74. **Structure.** "Structure" means a building, sign, or appurtenance thereto, except for aerial or underground utility lines, such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph, or gas lines, and utility line towers, poles, and other supporting appurtenances.

Subp. 75. **Subdivision.** "Subdivision" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.352.

Subp. 76. **Subsurface sewage treatment system.** "Subsurface sewage treatment system" has the meaning given under part 7080.1100.

Subp. 77. **Toe of the bluff.** "Toe of the bluff" means a line along the bottom of a bluff, requiring field verification, such that the slope above the line exceeds 18 percent and the slope below the line is 18 percent or less, measured over a horizontal distance of 25 feet. See subpart 9, Figure 1.

Subp. 78. **Top of the bluff.** "Top of the bluff" means a line along the top of a bluff, requiring field verification, such that the slope below the line exceeds 18 percent and the slope above the line is 18 percent or less, measured over a horizontal distance of 25 feet. See subpart 9, Figure 1.

Subp. 79. **Transmission services.** "Transmission services" means:

A. electric power lines, cables, pipelines, or conduits that are:

(1) used to transport power between two points, as identified and defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 216E.01, subdivision 4; or

(2) for mains or pipelines for gas, liquids, or solids in suspension, used to transport gas, liquids, or solids in suspension between two points; and

B. telecommunication lines, cables, pipelines, or conduits.

Subp. 80. **Treeline.** "Treeline" means the more or less continuous line formed by the tops of trees in a wooded area when viewed from a particular point. The treeline is determined during all seasons as if under full foliage.

Subp. 81. **Twin Cities metropolitan area.** "Twin Cities metropolitan area" is the area over which the Metropolitan Council has jurisdiction according to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.121, subdivision 2.

Subp. 82. **Variance.** "Variance" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 394.22.

Subp. 83. **Water access ramp.** "Water access ramp" means a boat ramp, carry-down site, boarding dock, and approach road, or other access that allows launching and removal of a boat, canoe, or other watercraft with or without a vehicle and trailer.

Subp. 84. **Water-oriented accessory structure.** "Water-oriented accessory structure" means a small building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, that, because of the relationship of its use to public waters, needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure

<!-- page 456 -->
### 6106.0060 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

setback. Examples include gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks and patios.

Subp. 85. **Wetlands.** "Wetlands" has the meaning given under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005.

Subp. 86. **Wharf.** "Wharf" has the meaning given under part 6115.0170.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0060 ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM.

Subpart 1. **Purpose, terms, and time frames.** This part establishes the roles, responsibilities, and authorities for administration of this chapter. For the purposes of this chapter:

A. "plan," "ordinance," and "plan and ordinance" mean Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area plans and ordinances, and updates or amendments to the plans and ordinances, prepared to implement this chapter; and

B. time frames are measured in calendar days.

Subp. 2. **Responsibilities and authorities.** The standards and criteria for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area established in this chapter apply to:

A. the commissioner for reviewing and approving plans and ordinances and reviewing discretionary actions;

B. the Metropolitan Council for reviewing plans and ordinances;

C. local governments when preparing, amending, and administering plans and ordinances and reviewing and approving discretionary actions and permits required under this chapter; and

D. state or regional agencies, local park agencies, and special purpose units of government for permit regulation, plan development, and management activities within their jurisdiction and to the extent they have jurisdiction.

Subp. 3. **Consistent plans and ordinances.** Local governments within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area must adopt, administer, and enforce plans and ordinances consistent with this chapter. Plans and ordinances must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and must be approved by the commissioner before they are adopted as provided under part 6106.0070. For the purpose of this part, "consistent" means that each local plan and ordinance, while it may be structured or worded differently, meets the purpose, scope, and numeric thresholds and standards set forth in this chapter. Ordinances that are not consistent with this chapter require approval of flexibility from the commissioner according to part 6106.0070, subpart 6.

Subp. 4. **Greater restrictions.** Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting or discouraging a local government from adopting and enforcing plans and ordinances that are more restrictive than this chapter.

Subp. 5. **Duties of commissioner.** The commissioner must:

Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

<!-- page 457 -->
# MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA 6106.0060

A. consult with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, National Park Service, and Metropolitan Council and other state or regional agencies, special purpose units of government, local governments, and local parks and recreation agencies to ensure that the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area is managed as a multipurpose resource, according to Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15, subdivision 2, paragraph (a);

B. provide advice and assistance to local governments in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area for development, adoption, administration, and enforcement of plans and ordinances, consistent with the purposes under part 6106.0020;

C. coordinate preparation, submission, review, and modification of plans and ordinances that are prepared by local governments as provided under part 6106.0070;

D. review and approve final draft plans and ordinances before adoption by a local government as provided under part 6106.0070; and

E. consult with those government units identified in subpart 1 that own or manage land within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area to ensure that they administer lands and programs under their jurisdictions consistent with this chapter.

Subp. 6. **Duties of Metropolitan Council.** The Metropolitan Council must:

A. incorporate the standards and criteria in this chapter into the council's planning processes;

B. work with local governments and the commissioner to ensure that the standards and criteria in this chapter are adopted and implemented; and

C. provide written comments and recommendations to the commissioner on all proposed plans and ordinances submitted by local governments as provided under part 6106.0070.

Subp. 7. **Duties of cities.** Cities must:

A. prepare or amend plans and ordinances to meet or exceed the minimum standards and criteria in this chapter and as provided under part 6106.0070;

B. submit proposed plans and ordinances that affect lands within the river corridor boundary to the Metropolitan Council for review and subsequent review and approval by the commissioner, before adoption as provided under part 6106.0070, subpart 3;

C. adopt, administer, and enforce plans and ordinances as provided under part 6106.0070, subpart 3;

D. send notice of public hearings to consider plans and ordinances, and amendments thereto, and other development requiring discretionary action affecting lands within the river corridor boundary to the following parties so that the parties receive the notice at least ten days before the public hearing:

(1) the commissioner, in a format prescribed by the commissioner;

(2) the National Park Service; and

(3) adjoining local governments within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, including those with overlapping jurisdiction and those across the river, where buildings exceed the height limits specified in part 6106.0120, as part of the conditional use permit or variance process; and

E. send notice of final decisions for actions under item D, including findings of fact, within ten days following the final decision, to those parties listed under and in the manner prescribed by item D.

<!-- page 458 -->
# 6106.0070 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

Subp. 8. **Duties of counties and townships.**

A. Counties must prepare or amend plans and may prepare ordinances consistent with this chapter under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, chapters 394 and 473, using the process set forth in subpart 7.

B. Townships must prepare or amend plans and ordinances consistent with this chapter under the authority of Minnesota Statutes, chapters 394, 462, and 473, using the process set forth in subpart 7. If a county has adopted ordinances under this part:

(1) a township's plan and ordinances must be consistent with and at least as restrictive as the plan and ordinances adopted by the county in which the township is located, as provided under Minnesota Statutes, section 394.33;

(2) a township must provide for administration and enforcement of Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area ordinances; and

(3) a township may adopt a county's ordinances by reference.

Subp. 9. **Duties of state or regional agencies and other government entities.** Any state or regional agency, local park agency, or special purpose unit of government that owns or manages lands within the river corridor boundary must manage the lands under its authority in a manner consistent with this chapter.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

# 6106.0070 PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND ORDINANCES.

Subpart 1. **Purpose.** The purpose of this part is to establish the process, responsibilities, time frames, content requirements, and evaluation criteria for preparation, review, and approval of plans and ordinances, in order to ensure an efficient process aligned with other regional and local planning processes.

Subp. 2. **Adoption of plans and ordinances.**

A. The commissioner, in consultation with the Metropolitan Council, shall notify local governments of the schedule for preparing or amending plans and ordinances consistent with this chapter. The schedule must align as closely as possible with the comprehensive plan update schedule under Minnesota Statutes, section 473.864.

B. All plans and ordinances adopted by local governments pursuant to Executive Order 79-19 that are in existence on January 4, 2017, remain in effect and must be enforced until plans and ordinances are amended consistent with this chapter, approved by the commissioner, and adopted by the local government as provided under subpart 3.

C. Where a local government has not adopted plans and ordinances pursuant to Executive Order 79-19, development must be governed by this chapter until such time as plans and ordinances consistent with this chapter are approved by the commissioner and adopted by the local government as provided under subpart 3.

D. The adoption of plans and ordinances consistent with this chapter does not limit or modify the rights of a person to complete a development that has previously been authorized as provided under Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.13.

Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

<!-- page 459 -->
Subp. 3. **Plan and ordinance review.**

A. Within one year of notification from the commissioner according to subpart 2, local governments must prepare or amend plans and ordinances consistent with this chapter. The commissioner shall grant extensions to local governments if requested in writing and if the local government demonstrates it has made a good-faith effort to meet the deadline specified in this subpart. The extension, if granted, must include a timetable and plan for completion of the ordinance.

B. Local governments must formally submit drafts of plans and ordinances to the Metropolitan Council and the commissioner for review, in a format prescribed by the commissioner.

C. If ordinances prepared under item B refer to standards in underlying zoning, then the underlying zoning documents must be submitted and considered in combination with the ordinance. Both the ordinance and underlying zoning standards must be consistent with this chapter. Ordinances not consistent with this chapter must be submitted as part of a flexibility request according to subpart 6.

D. The commissioner and the Metropolitan Council must review the plan or ordinance and communicate a decision to the local government as follows:

(1) within 45 days after receipt from the local government, the Metropolitan Council must review and comment on draft plans and ordinances for consistency with:

(a) this chapter;

(b) regional systems and policies, as specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 473.859; and

(c) the council's comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area, as specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 473.145; and

(2) within 45 days after receipt of the plan and ordinance from the Metropolitan Council, the commissioner must review the draft plan and ordinance to determine their consistency with this chapter, with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116G, and with the comprehensive plan adopted by a local government. The commissioner shall consider the comments submitted by the Metropolitan Council.

E. Upon completing the review, the commissioner must take an action under subitem (1) or (2) and provide a copy of the decision to the Metropolitan Council and the National Park Service:

(1) approve the draft plan and ordinance by written decision; or

(2) return the draft plan and ordinance to the local government for modifications, with a written explanation of the need for modification.

F. When the commissioner returns a draft plan and ordinance to the local government for modification, the local government must revise the draft plan and ordinance within 60 days after receipt of the commissioner's written explanation and must resubmit the revised draft plan and ordinance to the commissioner. Upon receiving the revised draft plan and ordinance from the local government, the Metropolitan Council and the commissioner must conduct the review as provided under item D.

(1) If a meeting is requested by the local government or the Metropolitan Council, a final revision need not be made until a formal meeting has been held with the commissioner on the draft plan and ordinance. The request extends the 60-day time limit specified in this item until after the meeting has been held.

<!-- page 460 -->
# 6106.0070 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

(2) The commissioner must grant extensions to local governments if the local government requests an extension in writing and if the local government is making a good-faith effort to meet the submittal deadline. The extension, if granted, must include a timetable and plan for completion of the plan and ordinance.

G. Within 60 days after receiving the commissioner's approval of a draft plan or ordinance, the local government must adopt the commissioner-approved draft plan and ordinance. The local government must submit a copy of the final adopted plan and ordinance, with evidence of adoption, to the commissioner, the Metropolitan Council, and the National Park Service within ten days after the adoption.

H. Only those plans and ordinances approved by the commissioner have the force and effect of law.

I. Once in effect, the local government must implement and enforce the commissioner-approved plan and ordinance.

J. If a local government fails to prepare and submit a draft plan and ordinance within one year of notification as provided under item A, fails to incorporate necessary modifications as provided under item E, subitem (2), or fails to adopt the commissioner-approved plan or ordinance as provided under item G, the commissioner must:

(1) prepare a plan and ordinance consistent with this chapter within 90 days of the deadline for preparation or adoption of plans and ordinances as provided under items A to E or G or the end date of an extension of time approved by the commissioner as provided under item F;

(2) conduct a public hearing as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 14.58, and other statutes as applicable;

(3) within 60 days after the conclusion of the public hearing, adopt by written order the plan and ordinance for the local government's portion of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area; and

(4) give notice of the adopted plan and ordinance to the affected local government, the Metropolitan Council, and the National Park Service.

K. Plans and ordinances that have been adopted by the commissioner under this subpart have the same effect as if adopted by the local government and must be administered and enforced by the local government.

L. Local governments may amend plans and ordinances at any time following the procedures under items C to I.

M. Plans must be updated regularly on the same schedule as other comprehensive plan elements according to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.864, and in a manner consistent with items C to I.

### Subp. 4. Contents of plans.

A. The plan must be a component of the local government's comprehensive plan prepared according to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.859, and must be consistent with the purposes and scope of this chapter.

B. Plans must contain maps, policies, and implementation provisions to:

(1) identify and protect primary conservation areas;

(2) identify and protect those public river corridor views and other scenic views deemed important by the community;

<!-- page 461 -->
(3) identify areas that are priorities for restoration of natural vegetation, erosion prevention, bank and slope stabilization, or other restoration activities;

(4) minimize potential conflict of water surface uses as authorized under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 86B;

(5) provide for commercial barge terminals, barge fleeting, and recreational marinas, if applicable;

(6) provide for future commercial and industrial uses that require water access;

(7) provide for and encourage creation, connection, and maintenance of open space and recreation facilities, such as parks, scenic overlooks, natural areas, islands, and wildlife areas;

(8) identify potential public access points and trail locations; and

(9) provide for transportation and public utility development in a manner consistent with this chapter.

### Subp. 5. Contents of ordinances.

A. Local ordinances must be consistent with the standards in this chapter and must include:

(1) definitions consistent with part 6106.0050;

(2) administrative provisions consistent with part 6106.0080;

(3) districts consistent with part 6106.0100;

(4) minimum standards and criteria consistent with parts 6106.0110 to 6106.0180; and

(5) alternative design methods consistent with part 6106.0170.

B. The local ordinance must be structured as an overlay district. If a conflict exists with underlying zoning, the provisions of the overlay district govern. Where specific numeric thresholds or standards are listed in this chapter, those numeric thresholds or standards must be included in the overlay district.

### Subp. 6. Flexibility requests for ordinances.

A. Local governments may, under special circumstances and with the commissioner's prior approval, adopt ordinances that are not consistent with this chapter, provided that the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15, are met and the ordinance is consistent with the plan prepared by the local government and approved according to this chapter. Special circumstances include the following situations:

(1) areas where existing urban, residential, commercial, or industrial development patterns have been in place since before the designation of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and where the majority of the development does not meet the minimum state standards;

(2) areas managed under other water and related land resource management programs authorized by state or federal legislation with goals compatible with this chapter;

(3) existing or planned wastewater, storm water, water supply, or utility facilities and similar physical or infrastructural constraints make the use of particular minimum standards impractical; and

(4) areas where detailed modeling of visual, physical, or other resource impacts has been completed as part of a public planning process.

Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

<!-- page 462 -->
B. A local government requesting ordinance flexibility must submit a written request to the commissioner as part of the ordinance submittal required under subpart 3. The request must:

(1) be approved by the governing body with authority to approve the request;

(2) include the proposed ordinance and any associated maps;

(3) include a detailed description of the proposed alternative standards that are not consistent with this chapter, together with documentation that the alternative standards are consistent with the purposes and scope of this chapter;

(4) describe the special circumstances that justify the use of alternative standards;

(5) describe the potential impacts to primary conservation areas and mitigation actions proposed to address the impacts;

(6) include documentation of any input from adjoining local governments, including those with overlapping jurisdiction and those across the river, and from other potentially affected interests, including community members; and

(7) include any other supporting information, maps, and documents that the local government considers necessary to explain the request to the commissioner.

C. Within 60 days after receiving a complete request for ordinance flexibility as provided in item B, the commissioner must:

(1) make the request publicly available;

(2) evaluate the request based on:

(a) the extent to which the proposed alternative standards satisfy the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15, subdivision 1, and the purposes and scope of this chapter;

(b) the likely impact of the proposed alternative standards on primary conservation areas and public river corridor views;

(c) comments from adjoining local governments and other potentially affected interests; and

(d) the local government's identification of mitigation measures and its commitment to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from the proposed alternative standards; and

(3) approve or deny the request, state in writing to the local government the reasons for the approval or denial, and suggest any alternative solutions or regulatory approaches that would be granted ordinance flexibility.

Subp. 7. **Plans and projects for parks and other public lands.** State or regional agencies, local park agencies, special purpose units of government, and local governments with parks or other public lands within their jurisdiction must comply with the standards and criteria in this chapter. The agencies and government entities must include the following elements in plans and project designs for parks and other public lands they own or manage within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area:

A. documentation of the location of the park or other owned or managed land within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and recognition of the purposes of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area designation and this chapter;

B. standards for public utilities and facilities consistent with those in part 6106.0130; and

<!-- page 463 -->
C. provisions for protection of primary conservation areas and public river corridor views.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0080 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR ORDINANCES.

Subpart 1. **Purpose.** The purpose of this part is to identify administrative provisions that must be included in local ordinances to ensure that ordinances are administered consistent with the purposes of this chapter.

Subp. 2. **Variances.**

A. A local government must consider applications for variances in a manner consistent with Minnesota Statutes, sections 394.27, subdivision 7, and 462.357, subdivision 6. The local government's review must consider the potential impacts of a proposed variance on primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, and other resources identified in the local government's plan.

B. If a local government determines that a variance would negatively affect primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, or other identified resources, mitigation is required. Mitigation must be proportional to, have a relationship to, and offset the impact on the affected resource as provided in subpart 5.

C. The local government's findings of fact accompanying the issuance of any variance must include a finding and evidence supporting a finding that the requested variance is consistent with the purposes and scope of this chapter.

Subp. 3. **Nonconformities.**

A. The purpose of this subpart is to allow uses and structures that came into existence legally prior to January 4, 2017, and in conformance with then-applicable requirements to continue to exist and be put to productive use.

B. Nonconformities must be regulated by local governments in a manner consistent with Minnesota Statutes, sections 394.36 and 462.357, subdivision 1e.

C. Local governments may choose to allow lateral expansion of legally nonconforming principal structures that do not meet the setback requirements in part 6106.0120, provided that:

(1) the expansion does not extend into the shore impact zone or bluff impact zone or further into the required setback than the building line of the existing principal structure. See Figure 3; and

(2) the expanded structure's scale and bulk is consistent with that of the original structure and existing surrounding development.

<!-- page 464 -->
Figure 3: Expansion of Nonconforming Structure
within OHWL Setback

<<FIGURE>>

D. New structures erected in conformance with the setback averaging provisions of part 6106.0120, subpart 3, item D, are considered to be in conformance with local ordinance requirements.

E. Site alterations that were legally made prior to the effective date of local ordinances adopted under this chapter are considered conforming. Site alterations include vegetation, erosion control, storm water control measures, and other nonstructural site improvements. Expansion of site alterations must comply with this chapter.

### Subp. 4. Conditional and interim use permits.

A. In addition to meeting the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 394.301, 394.303, 462.3595, and 462.3597, a local government's review of conditional and interim uses must consider potential impacts of the conditional or interim use on primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, and other resources identified in a local government's plan.

<!-- page 465 -->
B. When evaluation and assessment identify a negative impact under item A, issuance of a conditional or interim use permit must include conditions for mitigation according to subpart 5.

### Subp. 5. Mitigation.

A. In evaluating a request for a variance or conditional or interim use permit, if a local government identifies a potential negative impact to primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, or other resources identified in the local government's plan, the variance or conditional or interim use permit must require mitigation.

B. Mitigation must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact of the project on primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, and other resources identified in the local government's plan.

### Subp. 6. Project information.

A. An applicant must submit relevant information to the responsible local government to evaluate how any development that requires discretionary action or a permit under this chapter complies with the plans and ordinances adopted under this chapter.

B. In addition to local government requirements, project information must include the following, unless the responsible local government determines that the information is not necessary:

(1) a detailed description of the project; and

(2) scaled maps and plans, dimensional renderings, maintenance agreements, and other materials that identify and describe:

(a) primary conservation areas;

(b) public river corridor views;

(c) buildable area;

(d) existing and proposed topography and drainage patterns;

(e) proposed storm water and erosion and sediment control practices;

(f) existing and proposed vegetation to be removed and established;

(g) ordinary high water level, blufflines, and all required setbacks;

(h) existing and proposed structures;

(i) existing and proposed impervious surfaces; and

(j) existing and proposed subsurface sewage treatment systems.

### Subp. 7. Accommodating disabilities. 
Ramps or other facilities to provide persons with disabilities access to the persons' property, as required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Fair Housing Act and as provided by chapter 1341, are allowed, subject to the following standards:

A. parts 6106.0120 to 6106.0180 must be complied with, except as provided in item B; and

B. when parts 6106.0120 to 6106.0180 cannot be complied with, the local government may issue an interim use permit to allow ramps or other facilities that do not comply with those parts. Upon expiration of the interim use permit, the ramp or other facilities must be removed.

Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

<!-- page 466 -->
**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0090 INCORPORATIONS BY REFERENCE.

The following documents are incorporated by reference as guidance for complying with the plans and ordinances adopted under this chapter. Unless specified otherwise, these documents are not subject to frequent change and are available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system:

A. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2013 and as subsequently amended);

B. Conserving Wooded Areas in Developing Communities: Best Management Practices in Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (1999 and as subsequently amended);

C. Design Handbook for Recreational Boating and Fishing Facilities, States Organization for Boating Access (2006 and as subsequently amended);

D. Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2007 and as subsequently amended);

E. Native Vegetation Establishment and Enhancement Guidelines, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (2015 and as subsequently amended), available online at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/native_vegetation/;

F. Shoreline Alterations: Riprap, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2012 and as subsequently amended), available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/shoreline_alteration.html; and

G. Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-0001, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2014 and as subsequently amended), available online at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/gp_2004_0001_manual.html.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0100 DISTRICTS.

Subpart 1. **Establishment of districts.** For purposes of this chapter, six districts are established in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, as described in this part, to protect and enhance the resources and features identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15, subdivision 3.

Subp. 2. **Purpose.** The six districts are established based on the natural and built character of different areas of the river corridor. All districts include diverse land uses, including parks and open space and scenic, natural, and historic areas.

Subp. 3. **Rural and open space district (CA-ROS).**

A. The rural and open space district (CA-ROS) is characterized by rural and low-density development patterns and land uses, and includes land that is riparian or visible from the river, as well as

Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

<!-- page 467 -->
large, undeveloped tracts of high ecological and scenic value, floodplain, and undeveloped islands. Many primary conservation areas exist in the district.

B. The CA-ROS district must be managed to sustain and restore the rural and natural character of the corridor and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas.

### Subp. 4. River neighborhood district (CA-RN).

A. The river neighborhood district (CA-RN) is characterized by primarily residential neighborhoods that are riparian or readily visible from the river or that abut riparian parkland. The district includes parks and open space, limited commercial development, marinas, and related land uses.

B. The CA-RN district must be managed to maintain the character of the river corridor within the context of existing residential and related neighborhood development, and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river and enhancing habitat and shoreline vegetation are priorities in the district.

### Subp. 5. River towns and crossings district (CA-RTC).

A. The river towns and crossings district (CA-RTC) is characterized by historic downtown areas and limited nodes of intense development at specific river crossings, as well as institutional campuses that predate designation of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and that include taller buildings.

B. The CA-RTC district must be managed in a manner that allows continued growth and redevelopment in historic downtowns and more intensive redevelopment in limited areas at river crossings to accommodate compact walkable development patterns and connections to the river. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river, providing public access to and public views of the river, and restoring natural vegetation in riparian areas and tree canopy are priorities in the district.

### Subp. 6. Separated from river district (CA-SR).

A. The separated from river district (CA-SR) is characterized by its physical and visual distance from the Mississippi River. The district includes land separated from the river by distance, topography, development, or a transportation corridor. The land in this district is not readily visible from the Mississippi River.

B. The CA-SR district provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and flow of untreated storm water into the Mississippi River are priorities in the district.

### Subp. 7. Urban mixed district (CA-UM).

A. The urban mixed district (CA-UM) includes large areas of highly urbanized mixed use that are a part of the urban fabric of the river corridor, including institutional, commercial, industrial, and residential areas and parks and open space.

B. The CA-UM district must be managed in a manner that allows for future growth and potential transition of intensely developed areas that does not negatively affect public river corridor views and that protects bluffs and floodplains. Restoring and enhancing bluff and shoreline habitat, minimizing erosion and flow of untreated storm water into the river, and providing public access to and public views of the river are priorities in the district.

Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

<!-- page 468 -->
# 6106.0100 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

Subp. 8. **Urban core district (CA-UC).**

A. The urban core district (CA-UC) includes the urban cores of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

B. The CA-UC district must be managed with the greatest flexibility to protect commercial, industrial, and other high-intensity urban uses, while minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and flow of untreated storm water into the river. Providing public access to and public views of the river are priorities in the district.

Subp. 9. **District boundaries.**

A. The physical boundaries of each district are delineated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area District Map, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2016 and as subsequently amended). The map is incorporated by reference, is not subject to frequent change, and is available on the department's Web site at www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/critical_area/index.html. The commissioner must maintain the map and must amend the map as provided in item C.

B. The district boundary lines on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area District Map are intended to follow the center lines of rivers and streams, highways, streets, lot lines, and municipal boundaries, unless a boundary line is otherwise indicated on the map. Where district boundaries cross unsubdivided property, the district boundary line is determined by use of dimensions or the scale appearing on the map.

C. The boundaries of a district established under this part must be amended according to subitems (1) to (3).

(1) A local government or a state or regional agency must submit a written request to the commissioner requesting a district boundary amendment. The request must:

(a) be approved by the governing body with the legal authority to make the request for the state or regional agency or local government;

(b) specifically identify the proposed changes to plans and ordinances to address the proposed change;

(c) identify changes in land uses, infrastructure, or other conditions since January 4, 2017, that justify the proposed changes;

(d) identify those local comprehensive plans, regional system statements, state park and transportation master plans, and federal plans that apply to the area proposed for a district boundary amendment;

(e) address potential negative impacts of the proposed change to primary conservation areas, public river corridor views, and other resources and features identified in local governments' plans; and

(f) contain a summary of feedback from affected parties as provided under subitem (2).

(2) The local government or state or regional agency requesting the district boundary amendment must give notice of the proposed district boundary amendment to adjoining or overlapping local governments, the Metropolitan Council, the commissioner, the National Park Service, and property owners in the area directly affected by the proposed district boundary amendments and must conduct a public hearing.

<!-- page 469 -->
(3) Upon receiving a complete request for a district boundary amendment as provided under subitem (1), the commissioner must consider the request and determine whether to initiate rulemaking to amend the boundary according to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 14. The commissioner must communicate the determination, in writing, to the local government or state or regional agency requesting the district boundary amendment within 60 days after receiving the request.

D. This subpart does not apply to the defined river corridor boundary.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0110 USES.

Subpart 1. **Underlying zoning.** Uses permissible within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area are generally determined by the local government's underlying zoning, with additional provisions for certain uses as specified by this part.

Subp. 2. **Agricultural use.** Where agricultural use is allowed by the local government, perennial ground cover is required within 50 feet of the ordinary high water level and within the bluff impact zone.

Subp. 3. **Feedlots.** New animal feedlots and manure storage areas are prohibited. Existing animal feedlots and manure storage areas must conform with chapter 7020.

Subp. 4. **Forestry.** Where forestry is allowed by the local government, tree harvesting and biomass harvesting within woodlands, and associated reforestation, must be consistent with recommended practices in Conserving Wooded Areas in Developing Communities: Best Management Practices in Minnesota, incorporated by reference under part 6106.0090.

Subp. 5. **Nonmetallic mining.** If allowed by the local government, nonmetallic mining requires a conditional use permit or interim use permit issued by the local government, subject to the following:

A. new nonmetallic mining is prohibited within the shore impact zone and bluff impact zone and within the required structure setback from the bluffline;

B. processing machinery must be located consistent with setback standards for structures as provided in part 6106.0120;

C. only one barge loading area, which must be limited to the minimum size practicable, is permitted for each mining operation;

D. new and, where practicable, existing nonmetallic mining operations must not be readily visible and must be screened by establishing and maintaining natural vegetation. The unscreened boundaries of nonmetallic mining areas are limited to only the barge loading area;

E. a site management plan must be developed by the operator and approved by the local government before new nonmetallic mining commences. Operations must be consistent with the site plan throughout the duration of operations at the site. The site management plan must:

(1) describe how the site will be developed over time with an emphasis on minimizing environmental risk to public waters;

(2) explain where staged reclamation may occur at certain points during the life of the site;

<!-- page 470 -->
# 6106.0120 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(3) address dust, noise, storm water management, possible pollutant discharges, days and hours of operation, and duration of operation; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(4) describe any anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations outside the pit, and reclamation plans consistent with the stated end use for the land; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;F. existing and new nonmetallic mining operations must submit land reclamation plans to the local government compatible with the purposes of this chapter.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subp. 6. **River-dependent uses.** River-dependent uses must comply with items A to C.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. Structures and parking areas, except shoreline facilities and private roads and conveyances serving river-dependent uses as provided in part 6106.0180, must meet the dimensional and performance standards in this chapter, must be designed so that they are not readily visible, and must be screened by establishing and maintaining natural vegetation.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. Shoreline facilities must comply with chapter 6115 and must:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1) be designed in a compact fashion so as to minimize the shoreline area affected; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2) minimize the surface area of land occupied in relation to the number of watercraft or barges to be served.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. Dredging and placement of dredged material are subject to existing federal and state permit requirements and agreements.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subp. 7. **Wireless communication facilities.** Wireless communication facilities require a conditional use permit or interim use permit issued by the local government. In addition to the conditional use permit or interim use permit requirements under part 6106.0080, the following conditions apply:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. the applicant must demonstrate that functional coverage cannot be provided through co-location, a tower at a lower height, or a tower at a location outside the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. the tower must not be located in the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. placement of the tower must minimize impacts on public river corridor views.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0120 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subpart 1. **Purpose.** The purpose of this part is to establish dimensional standards that protect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views from impacts of development and ensure that new development is sited in locations consistent with part 6106.0020.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subp. 2. **Structure height.**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. Structures, including accessory structures as defined by local ordinance, must be no taller than the heights specified for each district:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1) CA-ROS: 35 feet;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2) CA-RN: 35 feet;

<!-- page 471 -->
(3) CA-RTC: 48 feet, provided that tiering of structures away from the Mississippi River and from blufflines is given priority, with lower structure heights closer to the river and blufflines, and that structure design and placement minimizes interference with public river corridor views. Taller buildings are allowed by conditional use permit, as provided under item D, with consideration of the relationship of building height to the mature treeline, where present, and existing surrounding development, as viewed from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore and from public river corridor views;

(4) CA-SR: height is determined by the local government's underlying zoning requirements, provided the structure height in the underlying zoning is generally consistent with the height of the mature treeline, where present, and existing surrounding development, as viewed from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore;

(5) CA-UM: 65 feet, provided tiering of structures away from the Mississippi River and from blufflines is given priority, with lower structure heights closer to the river and blufflines, and that structure design and placement minimize interference with public river corridor views. Taller buildings are allowed by conditional use permit, as provided under item D; and

(6) CA-UC: height is determined by the local government's underlying zoning requirements, provided tiering of structures away from the Mississippi River and blufflines is given priority, with lower structure heights closer to the river and blufflines, and structure design and placement minimize interference with public river corridor views.

B. For the purposes of this subpart, height is determined by applicable local government zoning regulations, provided it is measured on the side of the structure facing the Mississippi River.

C. The height requirements in item A do not apply to those structures and facilities identified in part 6106.0180 as exempt from these requirements, but meeting the setback requirements of subpart 3.

D. In addition to the conditional use permit requirements in part 6106.0080, criteria for considering whether to grant a conditional use permit for buildings exceeding the height limits in item A must include:

(1) assessment of the visual impact of the proposed building on public river corridor views, including views from other communities;

(2) identification and application of techniques to minimize the perceived bulk of the proposed building, such as:

(a) placing the long axis of the building perpendicular to the river;

(b) stepping back of portions of the façade;

(c) narrowing the profile of upper floors of the building; or

(d) increasing the setbacks of the building from the Mississippi River or blufflines;

(3) identification of techniques for preservation of those view corridors identified in the local government's plan; and

(4) opportunities for creation or enhancement of public river corridor views.

### Subp. 3. Location of structures.

A. Structures and impervious surfaces must not be located in the shore impact zone and must meet the following setback requirement from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River and other waters within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, as specified for each district:

<!-- page 472 -->
# 6106.0120 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1) CA-ROS: 200 feet from the Mississippi River and 150 feet from the Minnesota River and Vermillion River;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2) CA-RN: 100 feet from the Mississippi River and 75 feet from the Rum River and Vermillion River;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(3) CA-RTC: 75 feet from the Mississippi River, Crow River, and Rum River;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(4) CA-SR: 75 feet from the Vermillion River;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(5) CA-UM: 50 feet from the Mississippi River;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(6) CA-UC: as specified in underlying zoning; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(7) for all other public waters within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, as specified in underlying zoning.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. Structures and impervious surfaces must not be located in the bluff impact zone and must meet the following setback requirements from the bluffline as specified for each district:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1) CA-ROS: 100 feet;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2) CA-RN: 40 feet;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(3) CA-RTC: 40 feet;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(4) CA-SR: 40 feet;

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(5) CA-UM: 40 feet; and

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(6) CA-UC: 40 feet.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. The requirements in items A and B do not apply to those structures and facilities listed in part 6106.0180 as exempt from these requirements.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;D. Where principal structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, the minimum setback may be altered to conform to the average of the adjoining setbacks, provided that the new structure's scale and bulk riverward or bluffward of the setbacks required under items A and B are consistent with adjoining development. No structures or impervious surfaces are allowed within the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone, except as specified under part 6106.0180.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E. Subsurface sewage treatment systems, including the septic tank and absorption area, must be located at least 75 feet from the ordinary high water level of the Mississippi River and all other public waters within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subp. 4. **Standards for new lots.**

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. Where lots are created after January 4, 2017, lot area and width standards must comply with the requirements of the underlying zoning, except the width of lots abutting the Mississippi River in the CA-ROS district must be at least 200 feet, unless alternative design methods are used that provide greater protection of the riparian areas.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. New lots must have adequate buildable area to comply with the setback requirements in subpart 3.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**History:** *41 SR 799*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

<!-- page 473 -->
# 6106.0130 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES.

Subpart 1. **Purpose and scope.** The purpose of this part is to establish standards for public facilities that are consistent with best management practices and that protect primary conservation areas. Public facilities serve the public interest by providing public access to the Mississippi River corridor or require locations in or adjacent to the river corridor and therefore require some degree of flexibility.

Subp. 2. **Definition of terms.** For the purpose of this part, "public facilities" means public utilities, public transportation facilities, and public recreational facilities.

Subp. 3. **General design standards.** All public facilities must be designed and constructed to:

A. minimize visibility of the facility to the extent consistent with the purpose of the facility;

B. comply with the dimensional standards in part 6106.0120, except as provided in part 6106.0180;

C. be consistent with the vegetation management standards in part 6106.0150, subpart 5, and the land alteration and storm water management standards in part 6106.0160, including use of practices identified in Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-001, incorporated by reference under part 6106.0090, where applicable. State or regional agencies, special purpose units of government, local park agencies, and local units of government with parks within their jurisdiction are not required to obtain a vegetation management or land alteration permit under part 6106.0150 or 6106.0160, but must apply the standards and criteria that would be applied by local government, were a permit required;

D. avoid primary conservation areas, unless no alternative exists. If no alternative exists, then disturbance to primary conservation areas must be avoided to the greatest extent practicable, and design and construction must minimize impacts; and

E. minimize disturbance of spawning and nesting times by scheduling construction at times when local fish and wildlife are not spawning or nesting.

Subp. 4. **Right-of-way maintenance standards.** Right-of-way maintenance for public facilities is subject to the following standards:

A. vegetation currently in a natural state must be maintained to the extent feasible;

B. where vegetation in a natural state has been removed, native plants must be planted and maintained on the right-of-way; and

C. chemical control of vegetation must be avoided when practicable, but when chemical control is necessary, chemicals used must be in accordance with the rules, regulations, and other requirements of all state and federal agencies with authority over the chemical's use.

Subp. 5. **Crossings of public water or public land.** Crossings of public waters or land controlled by the commissioner are subject to approval by the commissioner according to Minnesota Statutes, sections 84.415 and 103G.245. The commissioner must give primary consideration to crossings that are proposed to be located within or adjoining existing rights-of-way for public transportation and public utilities.

Subp. 6. **Public utilities.** Public utilities must, at a minimum, comply with the following standards:

A. high-voltage transmission lines, wind energy conversion systems greater than five megawatts, and pipelines are regulated according to Minnesota Statutes, chapters 216E, 216F, and 216G, respectively; and

<!-- page 474 -->
# 6106.0130 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

B. if overhead placement is necessary, utility crossings must be hidden from view as much as practicable. The appearance of structures must be as compatible as practicable with the surrounding area in a natural state with regard to height and width, materials used, and color.

Subp. 7. **Public transportation facilities.** Where public transportation facilities intersect or abut two or more of the districts established under part 6106.0100, the least restrictive standards apply. Public transportation facilities must be designed and constructed to give priority to:

A. providing scenic overlooks for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians;

B. providing safe pedestrian crossings and facilities along the river corridor;

C. providing access to the riverfront in public ownership; and

D. allowing for use of the land between the river and the transportation facility.

Subp. 8. **Public recreational facilities.**

A. Buildings and parking associated with public recreational facilities, except as provided under part 6106.0180, must meet the dimensional standards in part 6106.0120 and must not be placed within the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone.

B. Roads and driveways associated with public recreational facilities must not be placed in the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone unless no other placement alternative exists. If no alternative exists, then design and construction must minimize impacts to shoreline vegetation, erodible soils and slopes, and other sensitive resources.

C. Trails, access paths, and viewing areas associated with public recreational facilities and providing access to or views of the Mississippi River are allowed within the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone if design, construction, and maintenance methods are consistent with the best management practice guidelines in Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines, incorporated by reference under part 6106.0090.

(1) Hard-surface trails are not allowed on the face of bluffs with a slope exceeding 30 percent. Natural surface trails are allowed, provided they do not exceed eight feet in width.

(2) Trails, paths, and viewing areas must be designed and constructed to minimize:

(a) visibility from the river;

(b) visual impacts on public river corridor views; and

(c) disturbance to and fragmentation of primary conservation areas.

D. Public water access facilities are subject to the following requirements:

(1) watercraft access ramps must comply with parts 6115.0210 and 6280.0250; and

(2) facilities must be designed and constructed consistent with the standards in Design Handbook for Recreational Boating and Fishing Facilities, incorporated by reference under part 6106.0090.

E. Public signs and kiosks for interpretive or directional purposes are allowed in the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone, provided they are placed and constructed to minimize disturbance to these areas and avoid visual impacts on public river corridor views.

F. Public stairways, lifts, and landings must be designed as provided in part 6106.0140, subpart 5, item C.

<!-- page 475 -->
**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0140 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE FACILITIES.

Subpart 1. **Purpose.** The purpose of this part is to provide design standards for private facilities within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area that are consistent with best management practices and that minimize impacts to primary conservation areas and other identified resources.

Subp. 2. **Definition.** For the purpose of this part, "private facilities" means private roads, driveways, and parking areas; private water access and viewing facilities; decks and patios in setback areas; and private signs.

Subp. 3. **General design standards.** All private facilities must be developed in accordance with the land alteration, vegetation, and storm water management requirements in parts 6106.0150 and 6106.0160.

Subp. 4. **Private roads, driveways, and parking areas.** Except as provided in part 6106.0180, private roads, driveways, and parking areas must:

A. be designed and constructed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography so that they are not readily visible;

B. comply with structure setback requirements according to part 6106.0120; and

C. not be placed within the bluff impact zone or shore impact zone, unless exempt under part 6106.0180 and designed consistent with part 6106.0130, subpart 3.

Subp. 5. **Private water access and viewing facilities.**

A. Private access paths must be no more than:

(1) eight feet wide, if placed within the shore impact zone; and

(2) four feet wide, if placed within the bluff impact zone.

B. Private water access ramps must:

(1) comply with parts 6115.0210 and 6280.0250; and

(2) be designed and constructed consistent with the applicable standards in Design Handbook for Recreational Boating and Fishing Facilities, incorporated by reference under part 6106.0090.

C. Design and construction of private stairways, lifts, and landings are subject to the following standards:

(1) stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways are allowed for commercial properties and residential facilities held in common, if approved by the local government;

(2) landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet are allowed for commercial properties and residential facilities held in common, if approved by the local government;

(3) canopies or roofs are prohibited on stairways, lifts, or landings;

<!-- page 476 -->
(4) stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the least visible portion of the lot whenever practical; and

(5) ramps, lifts, mobility paths, or other facilities for persons with physical disabilities are allowed for achieving access to shore areas according to subitems (1) to (4) and as provided under part 6106.0080, subpart 7.

D. One water-oriented accessory structure is allowed for each riparian lot or parcel less than 300 feet in width at the ordinary high water level, with one additional water-oriented accessory structure allowed for each additional 300 feet of shoreline on the same lot or parcel. Water-oriented accessory structures are prohibited in the bluff impact zone and must:

(1) not exceed 12 feet in height;

(2) not exceed 120 square feet in area; and

(3) be placed a minimum of ten feet from the ordinary high water level.

Subp. 6. **Decks and patios in setback areas.** Local governments may allow decks and at-grade patios to encroach into the required setbacks from the ordinary high water level and blufflines without a variance, in compliance with parts 6106.0150 and 6106.0160, provided that:

A. the encroachment of the deck or patio into the required setback area does not exceed 15 percent of the required structure setback;

B. the area of the deck or patio that extends into the required setback area occupies no more than 25 percent of the total area between the required setback and the 15 percent allowance, using the formula below:

[required setback depth (feet) x 0.15 x lot width (feet) x 0.25 = maximum total area]; and

C. the deck or patio does not extend into the bluff impact zone.

Subp. 7. **Private signs.** Placement of signs is guided by the local government's underlying zoning, with the additional provisions in items A and B.

A. If the local government allows off-premise advertising signs, the signs must:

(1) meet all required setbacks and height limits standards of this chapter; and

(2) not be readily visible.

B. If the local government allows directional signs for patrons arriving at a business by watercraft, the signs:

(1) must be consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 86B.115;

(2) if located within the shore impact zone, must convey only the location and name of the establishment and the general types of goods and services available;

(3) must be no greater than ten feet in height and 32 square feet in surface area; and

(4) if illuminated, must have lighting that is shielded to prevent illumination out across the river or to the sky.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

<!-- page 477 -->
### 6106.0150 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.

Subpart 1. **Purpose.** The purpose of this part is to establish standards that:

A. sustain and enhance the biological and ecological functions of vegetation;

B. preserve the natural character and topography of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area; and

C. maintain stability of bluffs and steep slopes and ensure stability of other areas prone to erosion.

Subp. 2. **Applicability.** This part applies to:

A. shore impact zones;

B. areas within 50 feet of a wetland or natural drainage way;

C. bluff impact zones;

D. areas of native plant communities; and

E. significant vegetative stands identified in local governments' adopted plans.

Subp. 3. **General provisions.**

A. Intensive vegetation clearing is prohibited, except for the following activities, which are allowed by local permit:

(1) clearing vegetation that is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous;

(2) clearing to prevent the spread of diseases or insect pests;

(3) removal of invasive non-native species;

(4) restoration and erosion control management activities consistent with a plan approved by the local government or resource agency; and

(5) the minimum necessary for development that is allowed as an exception under part 6106.0180.

B. The following activities are allowed without a permit:

(1) selective vegetation removal, including removal for those activities listed under item A, subitems (1) to (3), and removal for other purposes provided that vegetative cover remains consistent with the management purposes of districts under part 6106.0100;

(2) maintenance of existing lawns, landscaping, and gardens;

(3) removal of vegetation in emergency situations as determined by the local government;

(4) right-of-way maintenance for public facilities meeting the standards of part 6106.0130, subpart 4; and

(5) agricultural and forestry activities meeting the standards of part 6106.0110.

C. Local governments must not restrict the height of ground cover vegetation in the areas listed under subpart 2, items A to E.

<!-- page 478 -->
Subp. 4. **Permit process.**

A. Local governments must regulate intensive vegetation clearing activities identified in subpart 3, item A, through a permit process.

B. Local government may create a new administrative permit process or use an existing one for intensive vegetation clearing. Appeals of local government decisions on permits are subject to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6.

C. Local governments may delegate the permitting responsibilities described in this subpart to a resource agency or other qualified agent as determined by the local government.

D. Local governments must require permit applicants to submit information as needed to evaluate permits for consistency with the standards and requirements of this part and parts 6106.0080, subpart 6, and 6106.0160.

E. Local governments must grant the permit, deny the permit, or grant the permit with conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of this part, as provided under subpart 5.

Subp. 5. **Permit conditions.** In reviewing and approving permit applications, the local government must ensure through permit conditions that the following performance standards are met:

A. development is sited to minimize removal of or disturbance to natural vegetation;

B. soil, slope stability, and hydrologic conditions are suitable for the proposed work as determined by a professional engineer or resource agency;

C. clearing is the minimum necessary and designed to blend with the natural terrain and minimize visual impacts to public river corridor views;

D. any native plant communities removed are replaced with vegetation that provides equivalent biological and ecological functions. If replaced, priorities for restoration are stabilization of erodible soils, restoration or enhancement of shoreline vegetation, and revegetation of bluffs or steep slopes visible from the river;

E. all other vegetation removed is restored with natural vegetation to the greatest extent practicable. Priorities for replacement are the same as under item D;

F. any disturbance of highly erodible soils is replanted with deep-rooted vegetation with a high stem density;

G. vegetation removal activities are conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time; and

H. other conditions as determined necessary by the local government to achieve the purpose of this part.

Subp. 6. **Vegetation restoration plan requirements.**

A. Reestablishment of natural vegetation is required:

(1) as a condition of permits under subpart 5, items D and E;

(2) upon failure to comply with this part; or

(3) as part of the planning process for subdivisions under part 6106.0170.

B. The vegetation restoration plan must:

<!-- page 479 -->
(1) include vegetation that provides suitable habitat and effective soil stability, runoff retention, and infiltration capability. Vegetation species, composition, density, and diversity must be guided by nearby patches of native plant communities;

(2) be prepared by a qualified individual as defined by the local government; and

(3) include a maintenance plan that includes management provisions for controlling invasive species and replacement of plant loss for three years.

C. The local government must issue a certificate of compliance after determining that the restoration requirements of item B have been satisfied.

D. Vegetation management and restoration activities must be guided by Native Vegetation Establishment and Enhancement Guidelines, incorporated by reference under part 6106.0090.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0160 LAND ALTERATION AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.

Subpart 1. **Purpose.** The purpose of this part is to establish standards that:

A. protect water quality from pollutant loadings of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and other contaminants; and

B. maintain stability of bluffs, shorelines, and other areas prone to erosion.

Subp. 2. **Definitions.** For the purpose of this part:

A. "fully reconstructs" means the reconstruction of an existing impervious surface that involves site grading and subsurface excavation so that soil is exposed. Mill and overlay and other resurfacing activities are not considered fully reconstructed;

B. "storm water management facilities" means facilities for the collection, conveyance, treatment, or disposal of storm water; and

C. "water quality impact zone" means land within the shore impact zone or within 50 feet of the boundary of a public water, wetland, or natural drainage way, whichever is greater.

Subp. 3. **Land alteration.**

A. Within the bluff impact zone, land alteration is prohibited, except for the following which are allowed by local government permit:

(1) erosion control consistent with subpart 6 and a plan approved by the local government or resource agency;

(2) the minimum necessary for development that is allowed as an exception under part 6106.0180; and

(3) repair and maintenance of existing buildings and facilities.

B. Within the water quality impact zone, land alteration that involves a volume of more than ten cubic yards of material or affects an area greater than 1,000 square feet requires a permit from the local government, meeting the standards in subparts 5 and 6.

<!-- page 480 -->
Subp. 4. **Rock riprap, retaining walls, and other erosion control structures.**

A. Construction, repair, or replacement of rock riprap, retaining walls, and other erosion control structures located at or below the ordinary high water level must comply with parts 6115.0215, subpart 4, item E, and 6115.0216, subpart 2. The work must not proceed unless approved by the commissioner as meeting all requirements for work in public waters.

B. Construction or replacement of rock riprap, retaining walls, and other erosion control structures within the bluff impact zone and the water quality impact zone are allowed by local government permit provided that:

(1) if the project includes work at or below the ordinary high water level, the local permit is not approved until the commissioner has approved or permitted the project according to item A;

(2) the structures are used only to correct an established erosion problem as determined by the local government or resource agency;

(3) the size and extent of the structures are the minimum necessary to correct the erosion problem and are not larger than the following, except as specified under subitem (4):

(a) retaining walls must not exceed five feet in height and must be placed a minimum horizontal distance of ten feet apart; and

(b) riprap must not exceed the height of the regulatory flood protection elevation; and

(4) structures may exceed the height limits in subitem (3) only if a professional engineer determines that a larger structure is needed to correct erosion problems.

C. Repair of existing rock riprap retaining walls and other erosion control structures above the ordinary high water level does not require a local government permit, provided it does not involve any land alteration.

D. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to waive any other permit requirements that are required by law.

Subp. 5. **Permit process.** Local governments must regulate activities identified in subparts 3 and 4 through a permit process consistent with subpart 6 and part 6106.0150, subpart 4.

Subp. 6. **Permit conditions.** In reviewing and approving land alteration permit applications, the local government must ensure that:

A. temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures retain sediment onsite consistent with best management practices in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, incorporated by reference under part 6106.0090;

B. natural site topography, soil, and vegetation conditions are used to control runoff and reduce erosion and sedimentation;

C. construction activity is phased when possible;

D. all erosion and sediment controls are installed before starting any land disturbance activity;

E. erosion and sediment controls are maintained to ensure effective operation;

F. the proposed work is consistent with the vegetation standards in part 6106.0150; and

<!-- page 481 -->
G. best management practices for protecting and enhancing ecological and water resources identified in Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-001, incorporated by reference under part 6106.0090, are implemented where applicable, regardless of project type.

### Subp. 7. Storm water management.

A. In the bluff impact zone, storm water management facilities are prohibited, except by local government permit if:

(1) there are no alternatives for storm water treatment outside the bluff impact zone on the site in question;

(2) the site generating runoff is designed so that the amount of runoff reaching the bluff impact zone is reduced to the greatest extent practicable;

(3) the construction and operation of the facility does not affect slope stability on the subject property or adjacent properties; and

(4) mitigation based on the best available engineering and geological practices is required and applied to eliminate or minimize the risk of slope failure.

B. In the water quality impact zone, development that creates new impervious surface, as allowed by exemption in part 6106.0180, or fully reconstructs existing impervious surface of more than 10,000 square feet requires a postconstruction storm water management permit from the local government consistent with the following:

(1) if a local government is covered by a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) general or individual permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, then the treatment requirements of the MS4 permit for postconstruction storm water management for new development and redevelopment projects apply;

(2) if a local government is not covered by an MS4 permit, then runoff from the new or fully reconstructed impervious surface must comply with the treatment requirements in the current national pollution discharge and elimination system program permit for construction storm water;

(3) local governments may adopt other treatment requirements approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency instead of those specified in subitems (1) and (2); and

(4) multipurpose trails and sidewalks are exempt from subitems (1) and (2) if there is down gradient vegetation or a filter strip that is at least five feet wide.

C. In all other areas of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area, storm water runoff must be directed away from the bluff impact zone or unstable areas.

### Subp. 8. Development on steep slopes.
A local government may allow structures, impervious surfaces, land alteration, vegetation removal, or construction activities on steep slopes if:

A. the applicant can demonstrate that the development can be accomplished without increasing erosion or storm water runoff;

B. the soil types and geology are suitable for the proposed development; and

C. vegetation is managed according to the requirements of this part.

### Subp. 9. Compliance with other plans and programs.
All development must:

Copyright ©2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.

<!-- page 482 -->
A. be consistent with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103B, and local water management plans completed under chapter 8410;

B. meet or exceed the wetland protection standards under chapter 8420; and

C. meet or exceed the floodplain management standards under chapter 6120.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0170 SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

Subpart 1. **Purpose.** The purposes of this part are to:

A. protect and enhance the natural and scenic values of the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area during development or redevelopment of the remaining large sites within the corridor;

B. establish standards for protecting and restoring biological and ecological functions of primary conservation areas on large sites; and

C. encourage restoration of natural vegetation during development or redevelopment of large sites, where restoration opportunities have been identified in local plans.

Subp. 2. **Applicability.**

A. Except as provided in item B, this part applies to the following developments involving ten or more acres for parcels that abut the Mississippi River and 20 or more acres for all other parcels within the river corridor boundary, including smaller individual sites within the following developments that are part of a common plan of development but may be constructed at different times:

(1) subdivisions;

(2) planned unit developments; and

(3) master-planned development and redevelopment of land.

B. The following activities are exempt from this part:

(1) minor subdivisions consisting of three or fewer lots;

(2) minor boundary line corrections;

(3) resolutions of encroachments;

(4) additions to existing lots of record;

(5) placement of essential services; and

(6) activities involving river-dependent commercial and industrial uses.

Subp. 3. **Project information.** Local governments must require detailed project information and provide for preproject review of all proposed subdivisions, redevelopments, and planned unit developments as provided under part 6106.0080, subpart 6.

<!-- page 483 -->
Subp. 4. **Design standards.**

A. Local government ordinances must contain provisions, including incentives, for alternative design methods such as conservation design, transfer of development density, or other zoning and site design techniques that achieve better protection or restoration of primary conservation areas.

B. Primary conservation areas, where they exist, must be set aside for protection as open areas as provided under item H. However, where primary conservation areas exceed the thresholds in subitems (1) to (4) as a percentage of a parcel, then only the percentage in subitems (1) to (4) must be set aside:

(1) CA-ROS: 50 percent;

(2) CA-RN: 20 percent;

(3) CA-RTC, CA-UM, CA-UC: ten percent; and

(4) CA-SR: ten percent, if the parcel includes native plant communities or provides feasible connections to a regional park or trail system, otherwise no requirement.

C. If the primary conservation areas exceed the maximum percentage established in item B, then the local government may determine which primary conservation areas are to be protected, with priority given to the protection of native plant communities and natural vegetation in riparian areas.

D. If primary conservation areas exist but do not have natural vegetation, then a vegetation assessment must be completed for the areas to be protected to determine whether vegetation restoration is needed. If restoration is needed, vegetation must be restored according to part 6106.0150, subpart 6.

E. If primary conservation areas do not exist on the parcel in question, the local government must determine whether any portions of the site have been identified as potential restoration areas in local plans, according to part 6106.0070, subpart 4. When such areas have been identified, vegetation must be restored consistent with a restoration plan according to part 6106.0150, subpart 6, and the restored area must be set aside as specified in item B.

F. Storm water treatment areas or other green infrastructure may be used to meet the requirements of this subpart if the vegetation provides biological and ecological functions.

G. Any land dedicated for public access or public facilities according to subpart 5 may be counted toward the set-aside requirements of this subpart at the discretion of the local government.

H. Areas that have been set aside under item B must be protected through:

(1) public acquisition by a government entity for conservation purposes;

(2) a permanent conservation easement, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 84C;

(3) a deed restriction; or

(4) other arrangements that achieve an equivalent degree of protection as determined by the local government.

I. Permanent protection methods under item H must ensure, within the areas set aside, the long-term management of vegetation to meet its biological and ecological functions, prohibit structures, and prohibit land alteration, except as needed to provide public recreational facilities and access to the river.

J. Protected open areas must connect open space, natural areas, and recreational areas, where present on adjacent parcels, as much as possible to form an interconnected network.

<!-- page 484 -->
**6106.0180 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA**

Subp. 5. **Land dedication.** Local governments that require dedication of land or equivalent amounts of cash for parks and open space under Minnesota Statutes, section 394.25, subdivision 7, or 462.358, subdivision 2b, must encourage dedication of lands suitable for riverfront access, parks, open space, storm water management, or other public facilities within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

### 6106.0180 EXEMPTIONS FROM SETBACKS, HEIGHT LIMITS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

Uses and activities not specifically exempted under this part must comply with this chapter. All exemptions in the shore impact zone (SIZ) and bluff impact zone (BIZ) are also subject to the vegetation management standards in part 6106.0150 and the land alteration and storm water management standards in part 6106.0160. In the table, "E" means that the use is exempt; "(E)" means that the use is allowed only if no alternatives exist, and "N" means that the use is not exempt and must meet the standards in this chapter.

| | Setbacks | Height limits | SIZ | BIZ | Standard (the use must comply with standard or referenced parts) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Industrial and utility structures requiring greater height for operational reasons (such as elevators, refineries, and railroad signaling towers) | N | E | N | N | Structure design and placement must minimize interference with public river corridor views |
| Barns, silos, and farm structures | N | E | N | N | |
| Bridges and bridge approach roadways | E | E | E | (E) | Part 6106.0130 |
| Wireless communication facilities (towers) | E | E | N | N | Part 6106.0110, subpart 7 |
| Chimneys, church spires, flag poles, public monuments, and mechanical service stacks and similar mechanical equipment | N | E | N | N | |
| Historic properties and contributing properties in historic districts | E | E | E | E | Exemptions do not apply to additions or site alterations to historic buildings or structures |

<!-- page 485 -->
| | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Buildings and structures on the face of or abutting the bluff in the CA-UC district of St. Paul, between Chestnut Street and Highway 52 | E | n/a | n/a | E | Height in the CA-UC district is governed by underlying zoning |
| **Public utilities** | | | | | |
| Electrical power facilities | E | E | E | (E) | Part 6106.0130 |
| Essential services (other than storm water facilities) | E | E | E | (E) | Part 6106.0130 |
| Storm water facilities | E | N | E | (E) | Part 6106.0160 |
| Wastewater treatment | E | N | E | N | Part 6106.0130 |
| Public transportation facilities | E | N | (E) | (E) | Part 6106.0130 |
| **Public recreational facilities** | | | | | |
| Accessory structures, such as monuments, flagpoles, light standards, and similar park features | E | E | (E) | (E) | Part 6106.0130; within BIZ, only on slopes averaging less than 30 percent. Exemptions do not apply to principal buildings |
| Picnic shelters and other open-sided structures | E | N | (E) | N | Part 6106.0130 |
| Parking areas | (E) | N | (E) | (E) | Part 6106.0130; within BIZ, only within 20 feet of toe of bluff; not on face of bluff; and must not affect stability of bluff |
| Roads and driveways | (E) | N | (E) | (E) | Part 6106.0130 |
| Natural-surfaced trails, access paths, and viewing areas | E | N | E | E | Part 6106.0130 |
| Hard-surfaced trails and viewing platforms | E | N | E | (E) | Part 6106.0130; within BIZ, only on slopes averaging less than 30 percent |
| Water access ramps | E | N | E | (E) | Part 6106.0130 |
| Public signs and kiosks for interpretive or directional purposes | E | N | E | (E) | Part 6106.0130 |
| **River-dependent uses** | | | | | |

<!-- page 486 -->
### 6106.0180 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA

| | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Shoreline facilities | E | N* | E | (E) | Part 6106.0110, subpart 6. Exemptions do not apply to buildings, structures, and parking areas that are not part of a shoreline facility |
| Private roads and conveyance structures serving river-dependent uses | E | N* | E | (E) | Part 6106.0110, subpart 6 |
| **Private residential and commercial water access and use facilities** | | | | | |
| Private roads serving 3 or more lots | (E) | N | N | (E) | Part 6106.0140; in BIZ, only on slopes averaging less than 30 percent. Exemption does not apply to private roads serving fewer than 3 lots or to private driveways and parking areas |
| Access paths | E | N | E | E | Part 6106.0140 |
| Water access ramps | E | N | E | N | Part 6106.0140 |
| Stairways, lifts, and landings | E | N | E | E | Part 6106.0140 |
| Water-oriented accessory structures | E | N | E | N | Part 6106.0140 |
| Patios and decks | E | N | N | N | Part 6106.0140, subpart 6 |
| Directional signs for watercraft (private) | E | N | E | N | Part 6106.0140; exemption does not apply to off-premise advertising signs |
| Temporary storage of docks, boats, and other equipment during the winter months | E | N | E | N | |
| Erosion control structures, such as rock riprap and retaining walls | E | N | E | (E) | Part 6106.0160, subpart 4 |
| Flood control structures | E | N | E | (E) | Part 6106.0160 |

* River-dependent commercial, industrial, and utility structures are exempt from height limits only if greater height is required for operational reasons.

**Statutory Authority:** *MS s 116G.15*

**History:** *41 SR 799*

**Published Electronically:** *January 19, 2017*

<!-- page 487 -->
# Attachment B
MRCCA Native Plant Communites

<!-- page 488 -->
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
# MRCCA NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES (NPC)

| NPC - *MHs38c*- MAPLE-BASSWOOD FOREST (MB) | LATIN NAME | COMMON NAME |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | |

The Maple-Basswood Forest known for its presence of red oaks, suger maples, basswood and bitternut hickory trees, these plant communities are moist soils on glacial till or north-facing outwash slopes.

<<FIGURE>>

PLANT COMMUNITY SITES

<<FIGURE>>

| | LATIN NAME | COMMON NAME |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| TREES & UNDERSTORY | *Acer saccharinum* | Sugar Maple |
| | *Fraxinus americana* | White Ash |
| | *Fraxinus nigra* | Black Ash |
| | *Fraxinus pennsylvanica* | Green Ash |
| | *Quercus rubra* | Red Oak |
| | *Tilia americana* | Basswood |
| | *Ulmus americana* | American Elm |
| | *Ulmus rubra* | Slippery Elm |
| SHURB COVER | *Carpinus caroliniana* | American Hornbeam |
| | *Carya cordiformis* | Bitternut Hickory |
| | *Cornus alternifolia* | Pagoda Dogwood |
| | *Dirca palustris* | Leatherwood |
| | *Ostrya virginiana* | Ironwood |
| | *Ribes spp.* | Gooseberries |
| | *Sambucus pubens* | Red-berried Elder |
| | *Staphylea trifolia* | Bladder-Nut |
| GROUND COVER | *Allium tricoccum* | Wild Leek |
| | *Aplectrum hyemale* | Putty-Root |
| | *Brachyelytrum erectum* | Bearded Short-Husk |
| | *Carex albursina* | White Bear Sedge |
| | *Dentaria laciniata* | Toothwort |
| | *Dicentra cucullaria* | Dutchman's Breeches |
| | *Erythronium albidum* | White Trout-Lily |
| | *Galium aparine* | Cleavers |
| | *Hydrophyllum virginianum* | Virginia Waterleaf |
| | *Hystrix patula* | Bottlebrush Grass |
| | *Isopyrum biternatum* | False Rueanemone |
| | *Solidago flexicaulis* | Zid-Zag Goldenrod |

<!-- page 489 -->
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
# MRCCA NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES (NPC)

| NPC - *UPs23a* - MESIC PRAIRIE (MP) | LATIN NAME | COMMON NAME |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | |
| The Mesic Prairie (Southern) plant communities are | *Amorpha canescens* | Leadplant |
| moist soils on sloping glacial till or outwash terrian. | *Andropogon gerardii* | Big Bluestem |
| | *Artemisia ludoviciana* | White Sage |
| | *Asclepias ovalifolia* | Oval-Leaved Milkweed |
| | *Asclepias speciosa* | Showy Milkweed |
| | *Aster laevis* | Smooth Aster |
| | *Astragalus crassicarpus* | Ground-Plum |
| <<FIGURE>> | *Cirsium flodmani* | Prairie Thistle |
| | *Delphinium virescens* | Prairie Larkspur |
| | *Echinacea angustifolia* | Purple Coneflower |
| | *Galium boreale* | Northern Bedstraw |
| | *Helianthus maximiliani* | Maximilian Sunflower |
| PLANT COMMUNITY SITES | *Helianthus rigidus* | Stiff Sunflower |
| <<FIGURE>> | *Heuchera richardsonii* | Alum-Root |
| | *Liatrisligulistylis aspera* | Blazing Stars |
| | *Lilium philadelphicum* | Wood Lily |
| | *Lithospermum canescens* | Hoary Puccoon |
| | *Lycium barbarum* | Wolfberry / Goji |
| | *Panicum leibergii* | Panic Grass |
| | *Panicum virgatum* | Switch Grass |
| | *Pedicularis canadensis* | Wood-Betony |
| | *Petalostemon candidum* | White Prairie Clover |
| | *Petalostemon purpureum* | Purple Prairie Clover |
| | *Phlox pilosa* | Downy Phlox |
| | *Potentilla arguta* | Tall Cinquefoil |
| | *Prenanthes racemosa* | Smooth Rattlesnake-Root |
| | *Prunus pumila* | Sand Cherry |
| | *Psoralea esculenta* | Prairie Turnip |
| | *Ratibida pinnata* | Gray-Headed Coneflower |
| | *Rose arkansana* | Prairie Rose |
| | *Salix humlis humlis* | Prairie Willow |
| | *Schizachyrium scoparium* | Little Bluestem |
| | *Solidago canadensis* | Canada Goldenrod |
| | *Solidago missouriensis* | Missouri Goldenrod |
| | *Solidago rigida* | Stiff Goldenrod |
| | *Sorghastrum nutans* | Indian Grass |
| | *Spartina pectinata* | Prairie Cordgrass |
| | *Sporobolis heterolepis* | Prairie Dropseed |
| | *Stipa spartea* | Porcupine Grass |
| | *Vernonia faciculata* | Ironweed |
| | *Viola pedatifida* | Prairie Bird-Foot Violet |
| | *Zigadenus elegans* | White Camas |
| | *Zizia aptera* | Heart-leaved Alexanders |

<!-- page 490 -->
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
# MRCCA NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES (NPC)

| NPC - *FFs68a* - FLOODPLAIN FOREST (FM) | LATIN NAME | COMMON NAME |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | *Acer negundo* | Box Elder Maple |
| The Floodplain Forest identified by the presence of sliver maples and virginia creepers are lowland forest on seasonally flooded soils along the riverbed. | *Acer saccharinum* | Silver Maple |
| | *Betula nigra* | River Birch |
| | *Celtis occidentalis* | Hackberry |
| | *Fraxinus pennsylvanica* | Green Ash |
| | *Populus deltoides* | Cottonwood |
| | *Quercus bicolor* | Swamp White Oak |
| <<FIGURE>> | *Quercus macrocarpa* | Bur Oak |
| | *Salix amygdaloides* | Peach-leaved Willow |
| | *Salix nigra* | Black Willow |
| PLANT COMMUNITY SITES | *Tilia americana* | Basswood |
| <<FIGURE>> | *Ulmus americana* | American Elm |
| | *Ulmus rubra* | Slippery Elm |
| | *Amphicarpa bracteata* | Hog-Peanut |
| | *Apios americana* | Groundnut |
| | *Boehmeria cylindrica* | False Nettle |
| | *Carex amphibola* | Eastern Narrowleaf Sedge |
| | *Cryptotaenia canadensis* | Honewort |
| | *Echinocystis lobata* | Wild Cucumber |
| | *Heracleum lanatum* | Cow-Parnsip |
| | *Laportea canadensis* | Wood Nettle |
| | *Leersia virginica* | White Grass |
| | *Pilea pumila* | Clearweed |
| | *Rudbeckia laciniata* | Tall Coneflower |
| | *Sicyos angulatus* | Bur-Cucumber |
| | *Vitis riparia* | Wild Grape |

<!-- page 491 -->
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
# MRCCA NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES (NPC)

| NPC - *WFs57a* - BLACK ASH SWAMP (BE) | LATIN NAME | COMMON NAME |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | |
| The Black Ash Swamp identified by the presence of black ash and red maple trees, forested swamps filled with muck at the base of steep slopes. | *Acer rubra* | Red Maple |
| | *Acer saccharinum* | Silver Maple |
| | *Fraxinus nigra* | Black Ash |
| | *Fraxinus pennsylvanica* | Green Ash |
| | *Tilia americana* | Basswood |
| | *Ribes americanum*\* | Wild Black Currant |
| <<FIGURE>> | *Athyrium angustum* | Lady Fern |
| | *Caltha palustris* | Marsh Marigold |
| | *Carex bromoides* | Brome-Like Sedge |
| | *Equisetum pratense* | Meadow Horsetail |
| | *Glyceria striata* | Fowl Mannagrass |
| | *Hydrocotyle americana* | Water-Pennywort\* |
| | *Impatiens capensis* | Jewelweed |
| | *Iris versicolor* | Blue Flag |
| | *Mitella nuda* | Naked Bishop's-Cap |
| **PLANT COMMUNITY SITES** | *Osmunda cinnamomea* | Cinnamon Fern |
| | *Pilea pumila* | Clearweed |
| <<FIGURE>> | *Poa paludigena* | Bog Bluegrass\* |
| | *Symplocarpus foetidus* | Skunk Cabbage |

\*Shrub cover category

<!-- page 492 -->
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
# MRCCA NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES (NPC)

| NPC - *MHs37b* - OAK FOREST (OM) | LATIN NAME | COMMON NAME |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | *Quercus alba* | White Oak |
| TREES | *Quercus ellipsoidalis* | Northern Pin Oak |
| | *Quercus macrocarpa* | Bur Oak |
| | *Quercus rubra* | Red Oak |
| | *Tilia americana* | Basswood |
| | *Acer saccharum* | Sugar Maple |
| UNDERSTORY | *Betula papyrifera* | Paper Birch |
| | *Carya cordiformis* | Bitternut Hickory |
| | *Ostrya virginiana* | Ironwood |
| | *Populus grandidentata* | Big-Toothed Aspen |
| | *Prunus serotina* | Black Cherry |
| SHRUBS | *Cornus racemosa* | Gray Dogwood |
| | *Corylus americana* | American Hazel |
| | *Prunus virginiana* | Chokeberry |
| | *Ribes spp.* | Gooseberries |
| | *Amphicarpa bracteata* | Hog-Peanut |
| GROUND COVERS | *Aralia nudicaulis* | Wild Sarsaparilla |
| | *Carex pensylvanica* | Pennsylvania Sedge |
| | *Cryptotaenia canadensis* | Honewort |
| | *Desmodium glutinosum* | Pointed-leaved Tick-Trefoil |
| | *Eupatorium rugosum* | White Snakeroot |
| | *Geranium maculatum* | Wild Geranium |
| | *Osmorhiza claytonii* | Sweet Cicely |
| | *Parthenocissus inserta* | Virginia Creeper |
| | *Phryma leptostachya* | Lopseed |

The Oak Forest known for its presence of red oaks, suger maples, red oak trees, these communities are also forested swamps with muck at the base of the slopes.

<<FIGURE>>

PLANT COMMUNITY SITES

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 493 -->
# Appendix B

Land Use

This appendix provides supporting content for land use related policies and satisfies Metropolitan Council requirements related to land use. By law, the comprehensive plan must include a land use element and implementation program that addresses existing and projected land use needs established by the Metropolitan Council.

<!-- page 494 -->
### FORECASTS AND COMMUNITY DESIGNATION
#### FIGURE 1: TABLE OF FORECAST POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, AND EMPLOYMENT OF 2020, 2030, AND 2040

| | 2020 | 2030 | 2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Households** | 190,700 | 200,900 | 212,500 |
| **Population** | 436,000 | 460,000 | 485,000 |
| **Employment** | 332,400 | 346,200 | 360,000 |

### ACCOMMODATING FORECASTED GROWTH
To demonstrate the city’s land capacity to meet growth projections for households, transportation, and jobs, city of Minneapolis staff conducted a parcel based analysis showing how development could be accommodated on a selection of properties.

Each parcel was assigned a residential density that is based on both the prevailing residential density of recent developments in the area, as well as a range of residential density calculated by restrictions placed on dwelling unit size by the building code and policy guidance given by the built form district for the site as identified in this plan.

In addition to demonstrating the ability to accommodate growth, the density ranges for future land use and built form districts shown below (figure 2) are intended to demonstrate compliance with the Metropolitan Council’s standards for density found in table 3-1 of the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan.

Each row in the table represents a land use and built form combination found in the maps as adopted. The Gross Acreage identified for each combination represents the acreage that is readily identifiable as a potential redevelopment site for the purpose of this exercise. Potential redevelopment sites -- mapped in figure 3 as an exercise to demonstrate capacity for growth -- are primarily surface parking lots and underutilized property near transit. Note that a Gross Acreage count = ‘0.00’ does not mean that redevelopment will not occur on properties with those land use and built form combinations.

The calculations found in figure 2 are direct inputs into the TAZ level forecasts supplied elsewhere in this plan.

Note: *Development is likely to occur along the ranges shown in figure 2, but in most instances will not be required to do so through regulation. Since most future land use categories allow for a mix of uses and do not explicitly require residential uses, the regulatory floor for all property in the city is effectively zero dwelling units per acre. This is consistent with current regulatory practice in the city where residential density on a per project basis is generally not directly addressed through zoning.*

<!-- page 495 -->
# Appendix B - Land Use

### FIGURE 2: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: ACCOMMODATING FORECASTED GROWTH ON POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SITES

| Future Land Use | Built Form | % Resid. | Typical Density Min DU/Acre | Typical Density Max DU/Acre | 2017-2020 Gross Acreage | 2017-2020 Net Acreage | 2017-2020 Min Units | 2017-2020 Max Units | 2021-2030 Gross Acreage | 2021-2030 Net Acreage | 2021-2030 Min Units | 2021-2030 Max Units | 2031-2040 Gross Acreage | 2031-2040 Net Acreage | 2031-2040 Min Units | 2031-2040 Max Units | PLAN TOTAL Total Gross Acreage | PLAN TOTAL Total Net Acreage | PLAN TOTAL Min Units | PLAN TOTAL Max Units |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Urban Neighborhood | Interior 1 | 100% | 8 | 30 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Urban Neighborhood | Interior 2 | 100% | 8 | 75 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 1 | 11 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 4 | 37 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 4 | 37 | 1.13 | 1.13 | 9 | 85 |
| Urban Neighborhood | Interior 3 | 100% | 8 | 100 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 3 | 41 | 1.38 | 1.38 | 11 | 138 | 1.38 | 1.38 | 11 | 138 | 3.17 | 3.17 | 25 | 317 |
| Urban Neighborhood | Corridor 4 | 100% | 30 | 150 | 1.57 | 1.57 | 47 | 236 | 5.24 | 5.24 | 157 | 786 | 5.24 | 5.24 | 157 | 786 | 12.05 | 12.05 | 361 | 1,807 |
| Urban Neighborhood | Corridor 6 | 100% | 50 | 300 | 1.77 | 1.77 | 89 | 532 | 5.91 | 5.91 | 296 | 1,774 | 5.91 | 5.91 | 296 | 1,774 | 13.60 | 13.60 | 680 | 4,081 |
| Urban Neighborhood | Transit 10 | 100% | 50 | 500 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 25 | 249 | 1.66 | 1.66 | 83 | 830 | 1.66 | 1.66 | 83 | 830 | 3.82 | 3.82 | 191 | 1,908 |
| Urban Neighborhood | Transit 15 | 100% | 100 | 750 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Urban Neighborhood | Transit 30 | 100% | 200 | 1000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Neighborhood Mixed Use | Interior 1 | 90% | 8 | 30 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Neighborhood Mixed Use | Interior 2 | 90% | 8 | 75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Neighborhood Mixed Use | Interior 3 | 90% | 8 | 100 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Neighborhood Mixed Use | Corridor 4 | 90% | 30 | 150 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 11 | 56 | 1.39 | 1.25 | 38 | 188 | 1.39 | 1.25 | 38 | 188 | 3.20 | 2.88 | 87 | 433 |
| Neighborhood Mixed Use | Corridor 6 | 90% | 50 | 300 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Corridor Mixed Use | Interior 2 | 85% | 8 | 75 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0 | 3 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 1 | 11 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 1 | 11 | 0.39 | 0.34 | 3 | 25 |
| Corridor Mixed Use | Interior 3 | 85% | 8 | 100 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Corridor Mixed Use | Corridor 4 | 85% | 30 | 150 | 2.04 | 1.73 | 52 | 260 | 6.79 | 5.77 | 173 | 866 | 6.79 | 5.77 | 173 | 866 | 15.62 | 13.27 | 398 | 1,991 |
| Corridor Mixed Use | Corridor 6 | 85% | 50 | 300 | 1.77 | 1.50 | 75 | 451 | 5.90 | 5.01 | 251 | 1,504 | 5.90 | 5.01 | 251 | 1,504 | 13.57 | 11.53 | 577 | 3,460 |
| Corridor Mixed Use | Transit 10 | 85% | 50 | 500 | 5.74 | 4.88 | 244 | 2,438 | 19.12 | 16.25 | 813 | 8,126 | 19.12 | 16.25 | 813 | 8,126 | 43.98 | 37.38 | 1,869 | 18,690 |
| Corridor Mixed Use | Transit 15 | 85% | 100 | 750 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 22 | 164 | 0.86 | 0.73 | 73 | 547 | 0.86 | 0.73 | 73 | 547 | 1.98 | 1.68 | 168 | 1,259 |
| Corridor Mixed Use | Transit 20 | 85% | 150 | 1000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Community Mixed Use | Corridor 4 | 80% | 30 | 150 | 0.26 | 0.21 | 6 | 31 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 21 | 104 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 21 | 104 | 1.99 | 1.59 | 48 | 239 |
| Community Mixed Use | Corridor 6 | 80% | 50 | 300 | 2.79 | 2.23 | 112 | 670 | 9.30 | 7.44 | 372 | 2,232 | 9.30 | 7.44 | 372 | 2,232 | 21.39 | 17.11 | 856 | 5,133 |
| Community Mixed Use | Transit 10 | 80% | 50 | 500 | 4.21 | 3.36 | 168 | 1,682 | 14.02 | 11.21 | 561 | 5,607 | 14.02 | 11.21 | 561 | 5,607 | 32.24 | 25.79 | 1,290 | 12,896 |
| Community Mixed Use | Transit 15 | 80% | 100 | 750 | 3.18 | 2.54 | 254 | 1,906 | 10.59 | 8.47 | 847 | 6,354 | 10.59 | 8.47 | 847 | 6,354 | 24.36 | 19.49 | 1,949 | 14,614 |
| Community Mixed Use | Transit 20 | 80% | 150 | 1000 | 4.16 | 3.33 | 499 | 3,326 | 13.86 | 11.09 | 1,663 | 11,088 | 13.86 | 11.09 | 1,663 | 11,088 | 31.88 | 25.50 | 3,825 | 25,503 |
| Community Mixed Use | Transit 30 | 80% | 200 | 1000 | 4.31 | 3.45 | 689 | 3,447 | 14.36 | 11.49 | 2,298 | 11,491 | 14.36 | 11.49 | 2,298 | 11,491 | 33.04 | 26.43 | 5,286 | 26,430 |
| Destination Mixed Use | Corridor 4 | 80% | 30 | 150 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Destination Mixed Use | Corridor 6 | 80% | 50 | 300 | 0.87 | 0.70 | 35 | 209 | 2.90 | 2.32 | 116 | 696 | 2.90 | 2.32 | 116 | 696 | 6.67 | 5.34 | 267 | 1,602 |
| Destination Mixed Use | Transit 10 | 80% | 50 | 500 | 1.23 | 0.98 | 49 | 492 | 4.10 | 3.28 | 164 | 1,638 | 4.10 | 3.28 | 164 | 1,638 | 9.42 | 7.54 | 377 | 3,768 |
| Destination Mixed Use | Transit 15 | 80% | 100 | 750 | 2.13 | 1.70 | 170 | 1,278 | 7.10 | 5.68 | 568 | 4,261 | 7.10 | 5.68 | 568 | 4,261 | 16.33 | 13.07 | 1,307 | 9,800 |
| Destination Mixed Use | Transit 20 | 80% | 150 | 1000 | 1.87 | 1.49 | 224 | 1,493 | 6.22 | 4.98 | 746 | 4,976 | 6.22 | 4.98 | 746 | 4,976 | 14.31 | 11.44 | 1,717 | 11,444 |
| Destination Mixed Use | Transit 30 | 80% | 200 | 1000 | 0.53 | 0.42 | 85 | 423 | 1.76 | 1.41 | 282 | 1,412 | 1.76 | 1.41 | 282 | 1,412 | 4.06 | 3.25 | 649 | 3,246 |
| Destination Mixed Use | Core 50 | 80% | 200 | 1000 | 1.11 | 0.88 | 177 | 884 | 3.68 | 2.95 | 589 | 2,947 | 3.68 | 2.95 | 589 | 2,947 | 8.47 | 6.78 | 1,356 | 6,778 |
| Neighborhood Office and Services | Corridor 4 | 90% | 30 | 150 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Neighborhood Office and Services | Corridor 6 | 90% | 50 | 300 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | Interior 3 | 80% | 8 | 100 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | Corridor 4 | 80% | 30 | 150 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | Corridor 6 | 80% | 50 | 300 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 30 | 179 | 2.49 | 1.99 | 100 | 597 | 2.49 | 1.99 | 100 | 597 | 5.72 | 4.58 | 229 | 1,374 |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | Transit 10 | 80% | 50 | 500 | 0.61 | 0.49 | 24 | 243 | 2.02 | 1.62 | 81 | 808 | 2.02 | 1.62 | 81 | 808 | 4.65 | 3.72 | 186 | 1,859 |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | Transit 15 | 80% | 100 | 750 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | Transit 20 | 80% | 150 | 1000 | 0.63 | 0.50 | 75 | 501 | 2.09 | 1.67 | 251 | 1,672 | 2.09 | 1.67 | 251 | 1,672 | 4.81 | 3.84 | 577 | 3,845 |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | Transit 30 | 80% | 200 | 1000 | 3.14 | 2.51 | 503 | 2,514 | 10.47 | 8.38 | 1,676 | 8,380 | 10.47 | 8.38 | 1,676 | 8,380 | 24.09 | 19.27 | 3,855 | 19,273 |
| Public, Office, and Institutional | Core 50 | 80% | 200 | 1000 | 2.10 | 1.68 | 336 | 1,680 | 7.00 | 5.60 | 1,120 | 5,600 | 7.00 | 5.60 | 1,120 | 5,600 | 16.10 | 12.88 | 2,576 | 12,879 |
| Parks and Open Space | Parks | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Production and Processing | Corridor 4 | 0% | 30 | 150 | 0.90 | 0.00 | . | . | 2.99 | 0.00 | . | . | 2.99 | 0.00 | . | . | 6.88 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Production and Processing | Corridor 6 | 0% | 50 | 300 | 0.53 | 0.00 | . | . | 1.78 | 0.00 | . | . | 1.78 | 0.00 | . | . | 4.09 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Production and Processing | Transit 10 | 0% | 50 | 500 | 0.20 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.67 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.67 | 0.00 | . | . | 1.53 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Production and Processing | Transit 15 | 0% | 100 | 750 | 0.36 | 0.00 | . | . | 1.18 | 0.00 | . | . | 1.18 | 0.00 | . | . | 2.72 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Production and Processing | Production | 0% | 0 | 0 | 2.23 | 0.00 | . | . | 7.43 | 0.00 | . | . | 7.43 | 0.00 | . | . | 17.09 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Production Mixed Use | Interior 3 | 50% | 8 | 100 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Production Mixed Use | Corridor 4 | 50% | 30 | 150 | 1.14 | 0.57 | 17 | 85 | 3.79 | 1.89 | 57 | 284 | 3.79 | 1.89 | 57 | 284 | 8.71 | 4.35 | 131 | 653 |
| Production Mixed Use | Corridor 6 | 50% | 50 | 300 | 0.27 | 0.13 | 7 | 40 | 0.88 | 0.44 | 22 | 133 | 0.88 | 0.44 | 22 | 133 | 2.03 | 1.02 | 51 | 305 |
| Production Mixed Use | Transit 10 | 50% | 50 | 500 | 0.52 | 0.26 | 13 | 130 | 1.73 | 0.87 | 43 | 433 | 1.73 | 0.87 | 43 | 433 | 3.98 | 1.99 | 100 | 996 |
| Production Mixed Use | Transit 15 | 50% | 100 | 750 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Production Mixed Use | Transit 30 | 50% | 200 | 1000 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| Transportation | Transportation | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . | 0.00 | 0.00 | . | . |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TOTALS | 419 | 316 | 30,996 | 196,693 |

| DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ESTIMATES | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 2017 Household Estimate | 180,340 |
| 2040 Household Forecast | 212,500 |
| 2017-2040 Household Growth | 32,160 |
| Plan Capacity (units midpoint) | 113,844 |
| Minimum Density (units/acre) | 98 |
| Maximum Density (units/acre) | 623 |

<!-- page 496 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3: POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SITES (IDENTIFIED TO DEMONSTRATE CAPACITY FOR GROWTH)**

<!-- page 497 -->
# Appendix B - Land Use

# City of Minneapolis
# Existing Land Use

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 4: MAP OF EXISTING LAND USE**

<!-- page 498 -->
# Appendix B - Land Use

**FIGURE 5: TABLE OF EXISTING LAND USE ACRES.**

| Existing Land Use Code | Existing Land Use | Parcels | Acres | Acres (%) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| HL | LOW-DENSITY HOUSING (UP TO 20 DU/ACRE) | 85,508 | 12,139.78 | 49.73% |
| HM | MEDIUM-DENSITY HOUSING (20-50 DU/ACRE) | 4,016 | 674.18 | 2.76% |
| HH | HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING (50-120 DU/ACRE) | 1,575 | 570.50 | 2.34% |
| HV | VERY HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING (>120 DU/ACRE) | 309 | 138.96 | 0.57% |
| CL | CONGREGATE LIVING | 269 | 149.14 | 0.61% |
| CO | COMMERCIAL | 2,924 | 1,578.90 | 6.47% |
| MU | MIXED USE | 600 | 140.21 | 0.57% |
| PI | PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL | 220 | 768.29 | 3.15% |
| CE | CULTURAL/ENTERTAINEMTN | 439 | 1,435.33 | 5.88% |
| TU | TRANSPORTATION/COMMUNICATION/UTILITIES | 91 | 602.96 | 2.47% |
| LI | LIGHT INDUSTRIAL | 667 | 1,879.72 | 7.70% |
| GI | GENERAL INDUSTRIAL | 29 | 75.89 | 0.31% |
| PO | PARKS/OPEN SPACE | 480 | 2,245.12 | 9.20% |
| VLND | VACANT | 4,661 | 1,732.28 | 7.10% |
| EDIT | | 308 | 119.91 | 0.49% |
| NULL | | - | 159.99 | 0.66% |

<!-- page 499 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 6: MINNEAPOLIS 2040 COMMERCIAL LAND USE COMPARISON 2010 VS. PROPOSED**

<!-- page 500 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7: MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PRODUCTION LAND USE COMPARISON 2010 VS. PROPOSED**

<!-- page 501 -->
### Community Designations
### City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County

<<FIGURE>>

**Community Designations**

| | | | |
|---|---|---|---|
| | Outside Council planning authority | | Emerging Suburban Edge |
| | Agricultural | | Suburban Edge |
| | Rural Residential | | Suburban |
| | Diversified Rural | | Urban |
| | Rural Center | | Urban Center |

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 8: COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS MAP**

<!-- page 502 -->
# Appendix C

Housing

This appendix provides supporting content for housing related policies and satisfies the Metropolitan Council requirements related to housing. By law, the comprehensive plan must include a housing element and implementation program that address existing and projected housing needs established by the Metropolitan Council.

<!-- page 503 -->
## EXISTING HOUSING NEED

### Housing Assessment
The Metropolitan Council Estimates that Minneapolis contained 190,395 housing units in 2016. That is an increase of 12,108 housing units since 2010 or annual average of just over 2,000 housing units.

### Housing Types
Housing types vary across the City. Many areas of Minneapolis lack housing choice, both in the type of units, but also in the size of the units (measured by the number of bedrooms). Areas of our city that lack housing choice today were built that way intentionally. In the first half of the twentieth century, zoning regulations and racist federal housing policies worked together to determine who could live where, and in what type of housing. This, in turn, shaped the opportunities available to multiple generations of Minneapolis residents. A map of the distribution of building types and housing units in Minneapolis is located on the next page.

According to American Community Survey (ACS) estimates for 2012-2016 Minneapolis has approximately 78,000 single family homes representing approximately 43 percent of Minneapolis' housing units. Minneapolis has 102,000 multifamily homes, representing approximately 56 percent of Minneapolis' housing units.[^p503-1]

**FIGURE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF BUILDING TYPES AND HOUSING UNITS.** SOURCE: MINNEAPOLIS ASSESOR 2015.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p503-1]: The American Community Survey (ACS) estimates for housing units differ from housing unit counts derived from the Minneapolis Assessor data. Future work is needed to reconcile these numbers.

<!-- page 504 -->
# Appendix C - Housing

### Housing Tenure

Forty-seven percent of Minneapolis’ housing units are owner occupied, or roughly 80,000 units. This is a decrease of approximately 4,000 units since 2006. Fifty-three percent of Minneapolis’ housing units are renter-occupied, or roughly 89,000 units. This is approximately a 17,000 unit increase since 2006.

**FIGURE 2. CHANGE IN HOUSING TENURE 2010 TO 2016.**
SOURCE: AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 5YR DATA

| | 2016 | 2010 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Owner Occupied** | 80,520 (+/- 1,131) | 84,866 (+/- 1,295) |
| **Percent Owner** | 47% | 51% |
| **Renter Occupied** | 89,283 (+/- 1,110) | 82,275 (+/- 1,520) |
| **Renter Occupied** | 53% | 49% |

### Housing Tenure by Race

Minneapolis’ homeowners are disproportionately white compared to Minneapolis’ population. Nearly half of Minneapolis’ renter-occupied housing is headed by a person of color.

<<FIGURE>>

There is a 36 percentage point gap between White, non-Latino households who own their home and households of color that own their home.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 505 -->
### Changes in Household Incomes and Costs

In reviewing changes in housing costs and incomes between 2000 and 2014, it is clear that owner households as a group are largely better off than in 2000, with increasing incomes and stabilized housing costs. Compared with those who were renting in 2000, today's renters face reduced incomes and increasing rents.

<<FIGURE>>

### Household by Tenure

##### FIGURE 6. HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE, CHAS 2010-2014

| Tenure | Renter | Owner | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Owner Occupied | 31,365 | 5,365 | 36,730 |
| Percent Owner | 14,320 | 7,885 | 22,205 |
| Renter Occupied | 13,810 | 11,545 | 25,355 |
| Renter Occupied | 7,450 | 8,375 | 15,825 |
| Greater than 100% AMI | 16,990 | 47,525 | 64,515 |

Minneapolis’ largest portion of its households own their home and make more than 100 percent of the region’s area median income (AMI). Its second largest portion of its households rent and make less than or equal to 30 percent of the region’s AMI.

### Cost Burdened Households by Race

Forty-nine percent of all households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened- households in which more than 30 percent of household income goes toward housing; but this is not equal across racial groups. Over 50 percent of black households and American Indian households, and over 45 percent Hispanic households in Minneapolis are cost-burdened, whereas one in three white households are cost-burdened.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 506 -->
### Cost Burdened Household by Incomes

Nearly 39 percent (roughly 33,000) of Minneapolis’ renter households make less than or equal to 30 percent of the region’s area median income. Nearly 78 percent of those households (approximately 25,000) are cost burdened (spend 30 percent of their income on housing) and nearly 60 percent (approximately 19,000) are severely cost burdened (spend at least half of their income on housing).

**FIGURE 8. COST BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME, CHAS 2010-2014.**

<<FIGURE>>

Based on HUD data from 2010-2014, there are approximately 30,000 households in Minneapolis that are cost burdened that make less than or equal to 30 of the area median income (AMI), this would suggest there is a potential need of approximately 30,000 housing units affordable to households making less than 30 percent AMI.

About 14,000 households in Minneapolis making between 31 and 50 percent AMI are cost burdened and approximately 8,000 households that are cost burdened earning between 51 and 80 percent AMI. And there are 3,000 households making between 81 and 100 percent AMI that are cost burdened.

**FIGURE 9. TABLE OF HOUSING UNITS BY COST BURDEN HOUSEHOLDS.**

| Households by AMI | Owner-Occupied | % | Renter | % |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| less than 30% | 4,625 | 80% | 25,820 | 78% |
| 31% - 50% | 5,355 | 68% | 9,215 | 64% |
| 51% - 80% | 5,200 | 45% | 3,465 | 25% |
| 81% - 100% | 2,655 | 32% | 580 | 8% |

### Existing Housing Affordability

**FIGURE 10. MAP OF TOTAL ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING.**

<<FIGURE>>

Of Minneapolis owner occupied single family homes $151,500 is what the Metropolitan Council would consider affordable to a household making 50 percent of the regional AMI (or approximately $45,200[^p506-1] for a household of four).[^p506-1] A single family home purchased for $238,500 is what the Metropolitan Council would consider affordable to a household making 80 percent of the regional AMI (or approximately $68,000 for a household of four).

***

[^p506-1]: 1 Information on how the Metropolitan Council determines this number https://metrocouncil.org/Handbook/Files/Resources/Fact-Sheet/HOUSING/Area-Median-Income-and-Housing-Affordability.aspx

<!-- page 507 -->
### FIGURE 11. TABLE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BY AMI.
| Households by AMI | Owner-Occupied | % | Renter | % |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| less than 30% | 0 | 0% | 15,785 | 18% |
| 31% - 50% | 21,350 | 26% | 32,410 | 39% |
| 51% - 80% | 26,125 | 32% | 26,825 | 32% |

### FIGURE 12. TABLE OF LEGALLY BINDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DATA SOURCE: HOUSING LINK
| Housing by Population | # of Properties | # of Units |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Seniors | 44 | - |
| Disabled | 24 | - |
| Families | 139 | - |
| Other subsidized units | 71 | 10,993 |
| **Total** | \*\* | 23,135 |

\*\*These groupings are not mutually exclusive and cannot be totaled.

#### Narrative of Existing Housing Needs
In 2007 Minneapolis and the Metropolitan Council established a goal for Minneapolis to produce 4,424 housing units affordable at or below 60 percent AMI between 2011 and 2020. Between 2011 and 2017, Minneapolis produced 2,406 housing units affordable at or below 60 percent AMI. To meet this goal, Minneapolis will need to average the creation of 609 housing units per year between 2018 and 2020. Minneapolis is currently averaging the production of 370 units per year.

#### Barriers to Meeting Existing Housing Needs
The City of Minneapolis financially supports affordable housing projects in partnership with Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, the State of Minnesota, and the federal government. All of these financial resources are oversubscribed, meaning more affordable housing projects are seeking resources than can be funded at any given time. Projects wait, sometimes for years, to receive funding through various programs. This slows and constrains the production and preservation of affordable housing.

Construction costs and land values in the region and specifically in Minneapolis are rising. This is driving up the per-unit costs for affordable housing and increasing the funding gap needed to support affordable housing production. The increased gap then requires either additional funding sources or more funding from existing sources, funding sources that are oversubscribed, thus slowing the production of legally binding affordable housing.

As new legally binding affordable units are constructed, others are retiring due to meeting their statutory requirement for affordability. These projects are often recapitalized through affordable programs and compete for funds with new legally binding affordable housing projects. In 2017, Minneapolis extended the length of required affordability from 20 years to 30 years for affordable housing units the City helped finance.

Another barrier to affordable housing production is also a barrier to all development in Minneapolis. Generally, development in Minneapolis is frequently not allowed as-of-right at the level of development intensities called for and supported in adopted land use policy. This requires seeking re-zonings, conditional use permits, and in some case variances to achieve development allowed by adopted land use policy. This creates uncertainty and can add time delays that can increase the cost of development.

### PROJECTED HOUSING NEED
The Metropolitan Council projects Minneapolis’ population to grow to 459,200 by 2040. Based on recent and anticipated demand for urban living, local and regional investments in transportation and other infrastructure Minneapolis anticipates it will grow by a greater than the 40,000 people projected by the Metropolitan Council. The proposed land use plan in the draft of Minneapolis 2040 accommodates this growth through:

*   Allowing the most intense development (typically buildings ranging from 10 to 30 stories) at the intersection of high frequency transit routes, Metro stations, and in downtown Minneapolis.
*   Allowing development of four to six stories along high frequency transit routes, and development of up to four stories along many public transit routes.
*   Allowing development on interiors of neighborhoods that can include up to three dwelling units.

<!-- page 508 -->
# Appendix C - Housing

Based on a formula derived by its forecasted growth for Minneapolis, the Metropolitan Council has determined Minneapolis' allocation of the regional need of affordable housing is 4,449 new units, distributed across different affordability levels. See graphic that follows for distribution of affordable units:

<<FIGURE>>

The real current and projected need for affordable housing in Minneapolis likely considerably exceeds the projected housing needs suggested by the Metropolitan Council. A starting point for a measurement of current and projected need is to consider the number of households that are cost burdened at various bands of income (see figure 8).

The City of Minneapolis will guide residential land at densities sufficient to create opportunities for affordable housing using multiple options based: (1) on the minimum residential density of 6, 8 or 12 units per acre, (2) the allocation of affordable housing need by percentage of AMI and (3) the use of affordable housing programs and tools such as density bonuses.

### DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND FISCAL DEVICES
The Metropolitan Council requires comprehensive plans to include "a description of public programs, fiscal devices, and other specific actions that could be used to meet the existing and projected housing needs identified in the housing element."

The City of Minneapolis uses specific tools to fund, monitor and support our housing programs. For example, the federal HOME Investments Partnership program (HOME) and the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program are two funding sources of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) Program. The primary purpose of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) Program is to assist in financing the production and preservation of affordable and mixed-income rental housing projects with 10 units or more in Minneapolis. Program funds are available on a competitive basis to projects that need gap financing to cover the difference between total development costs and the amount that can be secured from other sources.

Although CDBG funding does not require a match, to qualify for HOME funding a financial match must be included. Financial matches are the following but not limited to: cash contributions (e.g. housing trust funds, foundation grants, and private donations), proceeds from Housing Revenue Bonds with the automatic 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit entitlement and/or cost of supportive services provided to the families residing in HOME-assisted units during the period of affordability.

In addition to CDBG and HOME funding the City of Minneapolis offers Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). In efforts to monitor and address expiring LIHTC properties, the City of Minneapolis tracks expiring tax credit properties in collaboration with Minnesota Housing. The also City participates in the Interagency Stabilization Group (ISG), which is a multi-funder collaboration focused on the preservation of declining and often tax credit funded projects. Preservation of existing affordable housing is a priority for the City, which is incentivized through scoring in both the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Housing Tax Credit programs. The City has amended its Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) in recent years to require developers of new tax credit projects to waive their rights

<!-- page 509 -->
# Appendix C - Housing

to a Qualified Contract. The City has also increased the minimum affordability term on 4% tax credit projects from 15 to 20 years, and added points to incentivize even longer affordability terms.

The following table of city housing resources is intended to meet the existing and projected housing needs identified by the Metropolitan Council. It is current as of May 2018.

| City Resources | Summary |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Multi-Family Housing: 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(30-60% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>5-10 years | ~$1.2 million/year via sub-allocator formula based on population. Available on an annual competitive basis to provide private equity financing for affordable and mixed income rental projects, both new construction and preservation. Awarded based on adherence to published Qualified Allocation Plan. LIHTCs typically provide a 70% subsidy for projects |
| **Multi-Family Housing: Affordable Housing Trust Fund**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(0-50% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>5-10 years | ~$10 million per year via City budget. Available on an annual competitive basis (pipeline for any unallocated funds) to provide gap financing for affordable and mixed income rental projects, both new construction and preservation. Funding is typically provided as a low/no interest deferred loan. $25k/ affordable unit maximum subsidy. |
| **Multi-Family Housing: Housing Revenue Bonds / 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(50-60% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>5-10 years | ~$50 million/year via entitlement issuer formula based on population. Available on a pipeline basis (project must meet threshold scoring) to provide private capital for financing affordable and mixed income rental projects (currently), both new construction and preservation. HRBs are paired with an allocation of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, which typically provide a 30% subsidy for projects. |
| **Multi-Family Housing: Pass Through Grants**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(20% of units up to 60% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>5-10 years | CPED staff manages a large portfolio of grant funds on behalf of our funding partners at DEED, Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council. These grant funds are associated with specific programs and range in utilization from environmental investigation and clean up to grants directly associated with new construction of affordable and mixed income housing. |
| **City Resources** | **Summary** |
| **Multi-Family Housing: Tax Increment Financing**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(30-60% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>10 or more years | Provides for use of Tax Increment Financing to support affordable housing development. |
| **NOAH Preservation: 4D Program**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(50-80% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>5-10 years | 4d status offers a lower property tax classification to apartment owners who have at least 20 percent of their units at an affordable at 60 percent of area median income, as evidenced by a recorded declaration of land use restrictions. |
| **NOAH Preservation: Small and Medium Multifamily Program & NOAH Preservation Fund**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(50-60% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>5-10 years | Strategies to assist with acquisition and preservation of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing. |
| **Single-Family Housing: Minneapolis Homes Development Assistance**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(up to 115% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>0-5 years | The program is designed to create new construction housing opportunities on City-owned vacant lots, includes incentives for direct development by a homebuyer and creation of long term affordable housing. Prioritize proposals serve between 50-80% AMI (average is 60% AMI) to ensure long-term affordability. |
| **Single-Family Housing: Minneapolis Homes: Build/Rehab**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(unrestricted AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>0-5 years | The program is designed to redevelop vacant buildings and vacant lots suitable for 1-4 unit residential development. There is no affordability restrictions, however a majority of the homes sold are typically naturally affordable up to 80% AMI. |
| **Single-Family Housing: Home Ownership Works**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(up to 80% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>0-5 years | The program supports the development of owner-occupied housing that is sold to homebuyers whose income is at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). |

<!-- page 510 -->
# Appendix C - Housing

| City Resources | Summary |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Single-Family Housing: Homebuyer Assistance Program**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(up to 80%, 115% and unrestricted AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>0-5 years | There are a variety of products - three products with different income level restrictions- designed to assist Minneapolis homebuyers with down payment and closing costs toward the purchase of their new home. |
| **Single-Family Housing: Home Improvement Programs**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(up to 30%, 80%, 115% and 150% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>0-5 years | There are four products with different income level restrictions, however this program mainly supports the rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing that is owned by homeowners whose income is at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). |
| **Inclusionary Housing Policy**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(0-60% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>0-5 years | Affordable housing is required for rental and ownership housing for residential new development projects that receive city funding or are located on city-owned land. There is a proposal to expand the policy to cover more development in 2019. |
| **Homelessness Response: Emergency Solutions Grant Program**<br><br><u>Level of Affordability</u><br>(up to 30% AMI)<br><br><u>Sequence</u><br>0-10 years | Funds for the renovation or rehabilitation of emergency shelters for people experiencing homelessness and to positively convert buildings for use as emergency shelters; $400,000/year for capital repairs; $150,000/year for street outreach (plus matching funds from the City General Fund); ~$280,000/year for rapid rehousing. |

<!-- page 511 -->
# Appendix D

Transportation

This appendix provides supporting content for transportation related policies and satisfies the Metropolitan Council requirements related to transportation.

<!-- page 512 -->
## NOTE ON UPDATE OF TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR MINNEAPOLIS

The information presented in this appendix reflects policy adopted by the City of Minneapolis and/or the Metropolitan Council as of the date of its publishing, as well as existing conditions to the extent possible based on availability of data. The City of Minneapolis is currently in the process of updating its Transportation Action Plan, replacing Access Minneapolis. This update will reflect the vision and guidance regarding the use and design of public rights of way in the City of Minneapolis set in Minneapolis 2040. The Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan will support the City in achieving the policies set in the Comprehensive Plan; any actions that impact or alter guidance in the Comprehensive Plan is not anticipated, but should they arise, the Comprehensive Plan would be amended to reflect the City’s anticipated direction.

## TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ZONES

| | HOUSEHOLDS | | | | EMPLOYMENT | | | | POPULATION | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **TAZ** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** |
| **1175** | 1049 | 1045 | 1061 | 1075 | 72 | 187 | 190 | 192 | 3031 | 3238 | 3298 | 3317 |
| **1176** | 754 | 840 | 853 | 865 | 228 | 177 | 179 | 181 | 2300 | 2362 | 2411 | 2458 |
| **1177** | 934 | 952 | 967 | 980 | 474 | 575 | 582 | 589 | 2269 | 2676 | 2733 | 2787 |
| **1178** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 372 | 552 | 559 | 566 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1179** | 164 | 172 | 175 | 177 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 395 | 453 | 466 | 475 |
| **1180** | 453 | 483 | 490 | 497 | 36 | 60 | 60 | 61 | 1105 | 1275 | 1306 | 1333 |
| **1181** | 421 | 421 | 428 | 434 | 115 | 126 | 128 | 129 | 702 | 1112 | 1141 | 1165 |
| **1182** | 501 | 553 | 561 | 569 | 169 | 169 | 171 | 173 | 1352 | 1458 | 1495 | 1525 |
| **1183** | 257 | 270 | 274 | 278 | 31 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 621 | 712 | 731 | 746 |
| **1184** | 240 | 239 | 243 | 246 | 50 | 57 | 58 | 58 | 546 | 631 | 647 | 659 |
| **1185** | 424 | 422 | 429 | 435 | 20 | 140 | 142 | 144 | 964 | 1230 | 1247 | 1256 |
| **1186** | 452 | 450 | 457 | 463 | 30 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 1152 | 1315 | 1329 | 1335 |
| **1187** | 249 | 283 | 287 | 291 | 22 | 37 | 38 | 38 | 669 | 785 | 809 | 831 |
| **1188** | 680 | 732 | 743 | 753 | 142 | 189 | 192 | 194 | 2156 | 2117 | 2125 | 2100 |
| **1189** | 5 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 214 | 437 | 442 | 448 | 15 | 15 | 29 | 42 |
| **1190** | 23 | 26 | 26 | 27 | 290 | 492 | 498 | 504 | 62 | 82 | 80 | 82 |
| **1191** | 352 | 408 | 414 | 420 | 87 | 32 | 32 | 33 | 1207 | 1276 | 1288 | 1286 |
| **1192** | 931 | 1066 | 1083 | 1098 | 265 | 129 | 130 | 132 | 2881 | 3331 | 3360 | 3355 |
| **1193** | 763 | 882 | 898 | 913 | 35 | 118 | 120 | 121 | 2342 | 2689 | 2709 | 2699 |
| **1194** | 691 | 773 | 785 | 795 | 66 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 1984 | 2356 | 2369 | 2352 |
| **1195** | 544 | 636 | 646 | 655 | 207 | 197 | 200 | 202 | 1534 | 1853 | 1878 | 1889 |
| **1196** | 615 | 644 | 654 | 663 | 11 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 1491 | 1877 | 1902 | 1913 |
| **1197** | 99 | 115 | 116 | 118 | 52 | 33 | 34 | 34 | 344 | 345 | 338 | 330 |
| **1198** | 398 | 550 | 558 | 566 | 187 | 191 | 194 | 196 | 1260 | 1648 | 1613 | 1569 |
| **1199** | 865 | 989 | 1004 | 1018 | 47 | 146 | 148 | 150 | 3165 | 3150 | 3071 | 2956 |
| **1200** | 502 | 666 | 692 | 720 | 219 | 534 | 540 | 547 | 1891 | 2117 | 2112 | 2086 |
| **1201** | 369 | 367 | 382 | 399 | 16 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 1199 | 1206 | 1159 | 1087 |
| **1202** | 373 | 467 | 474 | 481 | 37 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 1030 | 1534 | 1437 | 1311 |

<!-- page 513 -->
# Appendix D - Transportation

| | HOUSEHOLDS | | | | EMPLOYMENT | | | | POPULATION | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **TAZ** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** |
| **1203** | 432 | 460 | 467 | 474 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1292 | 1527 | 1486 | 1435 |
| **1204** | 368 | 444 | 451 | 457 | 89 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 1291 | 1475 | 1438 | 1384 |
| **1205** | 890 | 999 | 1032 | 1068 | 1044 | 888 | 899 | 910 | 2987 | 2880 | 2863 | 2830 |
| **1206** | 596 | 709 | 730 | 751 | 94 | 192 | 194 | 197 | 2138 | 1956 | 2021 | 2072 |
| **1207** | 339 | 370 | 376 | 381 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 1074 | 1230 | 1198 | 1153 |
| **1208** | 239 | 259 | 263 | 266 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 738 | 861 | 838 | 806 |
| **1209** | 378 | 403 | 410 | 415 | 184 | 170 | 172 | 174 | 1034 | 1066 | 1079 | 1078 |
| **1210** | 505 | 535 | 543 | 550 | 503 | 459 | 464 | 470 | 1109 | 1409 | 1418 | 1410 |
| **1211** | 727 | 736 | 770 | 808 | 813 | 1253 | 1292 | 1332 | 1586 | 1844 | 1939 | 2025 |
| **1212** | 840 | 836 | 1092 | 1401 | 640 | 899 | 910 | 921 | 2049 | 1832 | 2327 | 2890 |
| **1213** | 643 | 640 | 687 | 740 | 940 | 920 | 932 | 943 | 1921 | 1964 | 2120 | 2285 |
| **1214** | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 1149 | 1035 | 1048 | 1061 | 39 | 30 | 29 | 30 |
| **1215** | 322 | 321 | 425 | 550 | 850 | 674 | 692 | 710 | 996 | 752 | 972 | 1221 |
| **1216** | 376 | 374 | 403 | 435 | 136 | 203 | 206 | 208 | 640 | 878 | 921 | 965 |
| **1217** | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1169 | 1353 | 1370 | 1387 | 4 | 9 | 11 | 11 |
| **1218** | 32 | 32 | 32 | 33 | 780 | 986 | 998 | 1011 | 55 | 64 | 69 | 72 |
| **1219** | 284 | 346 | 351 | 356 | 275 | 244 | 247 | 250 | 960 | 894 | 893 | 876 |
| **1220** | 413 | 462 | 548 | 651 | 313 | 534 | 540 | 547 | 1484 | 1198 | 1393 | 1603 |
| **1221** | 543 | 608 | 618 | 626 | 276 | 284 | 288 | 291 | 1950 | 1579 | 1571 | 1544 |
| **1222** | 353 | 410 | 430 | 453 | 92 | 137 | 138 | 140 | 818 | 1064 | 1095 | 1118 |
| **1223** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 724 | 846 | 856 | 867 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1224** | 660 | 774 | 786 | 796 | 2042 | 2507 | 2538 | 2570 | 1387 | 1745 | 1790 | 1823 |
| **1225** | 236 | 237 | 241 | 244 | 98 | 121 | 122 | 124 | 534 | 569 | 575 | 581 |
| **1226** | 1065 | 1167 | 1185 | 1201 | 309 | 683 | 692 | 700 | 2307 | 2785 | 2852 | 2905 |
| **1227** | 680 | 732 | 743 | 753 | 996 | 735 | 744 | 753 | 1747 | 1805 | 1818 | 1816 |
| **1228** | 822 | 1036 | 1052 | 1066 | 1092 | 1309 | 1326 | 1342 | 1685 | 2553 | 2576 | 2572 |
| **1229** | 489 | 511 | 519 | 526 | 244 | 385 | 390 | 395 | 1108 | 1214 | 1243 | 1268 |
| **1230** | 572 | 621 | 631 | 640 | 1444 | 759 | 768 | 778 | 1382 | 1477 | 1513 | 1544 |
| **1231** | 1038 | 1102 | 1120 | 1135 | 323 | 297 | 300 | 304 | 2038 | 2525 | 2653 | 2769 |
| **1232** | 542 | 540 | 548 | 556 | 46 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 1032 | 1236 | 1298 | 1357 |
| **1233** | 216 | 396 | 402 | 408 | 165 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 528 | 837 | 884 | 940 |
| **1234** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 950 | 1105 | 1160 | 1215 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1235** | 360 | 400 | 406 | 412 | 150 | 137 | 138 | 140 | 683 | 889 | 940 | 989 |
| **1236** | 76 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 144 | 123 | 124 | 126 | 128 | 158 | 160 | 162 |
| **1237** | 588 | 802 | 814 | 825 | 928 | 1415 | 1432 | 1450 | 968 | 1782 | 1877 | 1977 |
| **1238** | 531 | 1333 | 1483 | 1659 | 1286 | 1213 | 1230 | 1246 | 966 | 2932 | 3307 | 3711 |
| **1239** | 143 | 879 | 1013 | 1171 | 1101 | 1021 | 1034 | 1047 | 213 | 1993 | 2389 | 2845 |
| **1240** | 2499 | 2546 | 2586 | 2621 | 1066 | 999 | 1012 | 1024 | 4573 | 5715 | 6003 | 6264 |
| **1241** | 23 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 559 | 960 | 972 | 984 | 51 | 255 | 269 | 282 |
| **1242** | 428 | 483 | 490 | 497 | 374 | 464 | 470 | 476 | 1244 | 1275 | 1348 | 1423 |
| **1243** | 16 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 334 | 463 | 469 | 475 | 35 | 54 | 52 | 56 |
| **1244** | 10 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 176 | 479 | 485 | 491 | 22 | 30 | 31 | 30 |
| **1245** | 658 | 752 | 769 | 786 | 643 | 788 | 798 | 808 | 1707 | 1787 | 1845 | 1895 |

<!-- page 514 -->
# Appendix D - Transportation

| | HOUSEHOLDS | | | | EMPLOYMENT | | | | POPULATION | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **TAZ** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** |
| **1246** | 539 | 574 | 840 | 1163 | 220 | 481 | 733 | 985 | 1339 | 1460 | 2140 | 2953 |
| **1247** | 390 | 395 | 402 | 407 | 993 | 1177 | 1192 | 1206 | 952 | 1008 | 1025 | 1034 |
| **1248** | 782 | 807 | 819 | 830 | 206 | 190 | 192 | 195 | 1840 | 2099 | 2137 | 2173 |
| **1249** | 307 | 316 | 321 | 325 | 12 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 655 | 822 | 841 | 852 |
| **1250** | 487 | 520 | 528 | 535 | 55 | 45 | 46 | 46 | 1123 | 1353 | 1378 | 1402 |
| **1251** | 837 | 995 | 1010 | 1024 | 305 | 377 | 382 | 386 | 2027 | 2588 | 2635 | 2679 |
| **1252** | 1427 | 1528 | 1567 | 1607 | 191 | 255 | 258 | 261 | 2841 | 3668 | 3789 | 3923 |
| **1253** | 263 | 305 | 310 | 314 | 114 | 458 | 464 | 469 | 632 | 731 | 748 | 764 |
| **1254** | 2 | 2 | 42 | 91 | 809 | 965 | 977 | 989 | 5 | 5 | 111 | 291 |
| **1255** | 1030 | 1086 | 1103 | 1118 | 230 | 245 | 248 | 251 | 2386 | 2610 | 2669 | 2732 |
| **1256** | 801 | 895 | 909 | 921 | 207 | 155 | 157 | 159 | 1812 | 2329 | 2376 | 2412 |
| **1257** | 707 | 732 | 743 | 753 | 35 | 35 | 36 | 36 | 1514 | 1903 | 1939 | 1971 |
| **1258** | 536 | 564 | 572 | 580 | 71 | 59 | 60 | 60 | 1235 | 1466 | 1494 | 1519 |
| **1263** | 203 | 207 | 210 | 213 | 39 | 33 | 34 | 34 | 451 | 466 | 475 | 485 |
| **1264** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1299 | 1056 | 1069 | 1082 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1266** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 339 | 110 | 112 | 113 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1267** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1961 | 2598 | 2630 | 2663 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1268** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 567 | 489 | 495 | 501 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1269** | 91 | 119 | 121 | 123 | 2867 | 5443 | 5511 | 5579 | 129 | 246 | 251 | 261 |
| **1270** | 98 | 102 | 103 | 105 | 541 | 617 | 624 | 632 | 242 | 257 | 270 | 282 |
| **1271** | 49 | 49 | 49 | 50 | 6238 | 6735 | 6819 | 6903 | 72 | 114 | 109 | 105 |
| **1272** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 310 | 776 | 786 | 795 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1273** | 1294 | 1289 | 1308 | 1326 | 953 | 854 | 864 | 875 | 3560 | 3270 | 3407 | 3541 |
| **1274** | 808 | 810 | 822 | 833 | 85 | 136 | 138 | 139 | 2185 | 2031 | 2125 | 2222 |
| **1275** | 126 | 136 | 138 | 140 | 576 | 655 | 663 | 671 | 301 | 330 | 333 | 336 |
| **1276** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2286 | 2701 | 2735 | 2769 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1277** | 162 | 1052 | 1337 | 1680 | 1894 | 3252 | 3292 | 3333 | 818 | 2447 | 2754 | 3183 |
| **1278** | 146 | 285 | 310 | 339 | 283 | 946 | 958 | 970 | 766 | 621 | 675 | 732 |
| **1279** | 1547 | 2336 | 2380 | 2421 | 4910 | 4906 | 4968 | 5029 | 4373 | 5295 | 5530 | 5704 |
| **1280** | 37 | 332 | 337 | 341 | 478 | 594 | 602 | 609 | 797 | 659 | 681 | 713 |
| **1281** | 663 | 1733 | 1759 | 1783 | 16665 | 17235 | 17450 | 17666 | 5522 | 3778 | 3677 | 3566 |
| **1282** | 859 | 1280 | 1299 | 1317 | 693 | 466 | 472 | 478 | 2490 | 2918 | 2995 | 3058 |
| **1283** | 712 | 746 | 792 | 845 | 541 | 544 | 551 | 558 | 1514 | 1744 | 1870 | 2019 |
| **1284** | 415 | 616 | 626 | 634 | 486 | 409 | 414 | 419 | 996 | 1342 | 1388 | 1430 |
| **1285** | 690 | 707 | 718 | 728 | 333 | 317 | 321 | 325 | 1484 | 1686 | 1731 | 1762 |
| **1286** | 975 | 1023 | 1039 | 1053 | 561 | 715 | 724 | 733 | 2036 | 2441 | 2501 | 2547 |
| **1287** | 415 | 439 | 446 | 452 | 54 | 59 | 60 | 60 | 932 | 1095 | 1124 | 1140 |
| **1288** | 1201 | 1257 | 1276 | 1294 | 137 | 267 | 270 | 274 | 2611 | 3133 | 3216 | 3269 |
| **1289** | 896 | 921 | 935 | 948 | 98 | 159 | 161 | 163 | 2016 | 2303 | 2383 | 2451 |
| **1290** | 972 | 1019 | 1035 | 1049 | 300 | 348 | 352 | 357 | 2176 | 2548 | 2642 | 2713 |
| **1291** | 588 | 624 | 638 | 651 | 312 | 273 | 276 | 280 | 1235 | 1563 | 1627 | 1683 |
| **1292** | 252 | 280 | 284 | 288 | 720 | 789 | 860 | 931 | 609 | 701 | 726 | 745 |
| **1293** | 78 | 80 | 595 | 1225 | 1205 | 1431 | 1472 | 1513 | 123 | 191 | 1445 | 2967 |

<!-- page 515 -->
# Appendix D - Transportation

| | HOUSEHOLDS | | | | EMPLOYMENT | | | | POPULATION | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **TAZ** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** |
| **1294** | 337 | 379 | 511 | 669 | 1179 | 1638 | 1658 | 1679 | 889 | 886 | 1199 | 1561 |
| **1295** | 1439 | 1471 | 1494 | 1514 | 1084 | 1089 | 1102 | 1116 | 2743 | 3437 | 3499 | 3530 |
| **1296** | 1450 | 1700 | 1993 | 2342 | 2659 | 3891 | 3945 | 3999 | 2942 | 4080 | 4847 | 5680 |
| **1297** | 304 | 303 | 330 | 361 | 2342 | 2352 | 2382 | 2411 | 1681 | 728 | 843 | 945 |
| **1298** | 180 | 179 | 186 | 194 | 5928 | 6673 | 6756 | 6840 | 1367 | 429 | 522 | 627 |
| **1299** | 725 | 956 | 1032 | 1120 | 388 | 387 | 392 | 397 | 1393 | 2165 | 2378 | 2596 |
| **1300** | 1752 | 1867 | 2015 | 2186 | 332 | 402 | 407 | 412 | 3684 | 4197 | 4581 | 4973 |
| **1301** | 532 | 558 | 588 | 623 | 327 | 571 | 578 | 585 | 1584 | 1335 | 1374 | 1411 |
| **1302** | 1177 | 1313 | 1334 | 1352 | 4766 | 5612 | 5682 | 5752 | 3780 | 3168 | 3171 | 3142 |
| **1303** | 863 | 859 | 884 | 909 | 145 | 167 | 169 | 171 | 2550 | 2072 | 2103 | 2113 |
| **1304** | 140 | 211 | 405 | 641 | 463 | 876 | 887 | 898 | 426 | 591 | 1087 | 1632 |
| **1305** | 540 | 652 | 662 | 671 | 93 | 186 | 188 | 191 | 2125 | 1827 | 1786 | 1714 |
| **1306** | 378 | 409 | 416 | 421 | 5708 | 6174 | 6251 | 6328 | 1313 | 1066 | 1090 | 1087 |
| **1307** | 575 | 573 | 591 | 610 | 2322 | 4300 | 4354 | 4408 | 1576 | 1494 | 1545 | 1574 |
| **1308** | 388 | 406 | 444 | 489 | 1169 | 1710 | 1732 | 1753 | 1317 | 879 | 953 | 1028 |
| **1309** | 731 | 809 | 827 | 846 | 1674 | 3814 | 3862 | 3909 | 1463 | 1748 | 1773 | 1781 |
| **1310** | 985 | 1147 | 1165 | 1181 | 700 | 1457 | 1475 | 1493 | 2644 | 2579 | 2609 | 2609 |
| **1311** | 482 | 480 | 504 | 532 | 674 | 462 | 468 | 474 | 1537 | 1075 | 1120 | 1160 |
| **1312** | 1044 | 1180 | 1198 | 1215 | 1169 | 1455 | 1473 | 1491 | 1818 | 1976 | 1998 | 2010 |
| **1313** | 944 | 1054 | 1145 | 1252 | 277 | 2309 | 2688 | 3067 | 1414 | 1858 | 2112 | 2401 |
| **1314** | 993 | 1042 | 1058 | 1072 | 3428 | 2839 | 2874 | 2910 | 2744 | 1627 | 1692 | 1756 |
| **1315** | 452 | 628 | 681 | 743 | 6931 | 10462 | 10593 | 10724 | 946 | 1107 | 1255 | 1424 |
| **1316** | 0 | 0 | 158 | 352 | 9072 | 10703 | 12713 | 14723 | 42 | 0 | 338 | 777 |
| **1317** | 100 | 826 | 960 | 1119 | 7769 | 11398 | 12410 | 13422 | 1133 | 1519 | 1816 | 2178 |
| **1318** | 66 | 337 | 504 | 707 | 1387 | 2666 | 2700 | 2733 | 110 | 656 | 995 | 1418 |
| **1319** | 859 | 2262 | 2532 | 2850 | 2388 | 3871 | 3920 | 3968 | 1319 | 3903 | 4508 | 5216 |
| **1320** | 1174 | 1345 | 1366 | 1385 | 3397 | 3113 | 3152 | 3191 | 1677 | 2355 | 2496 | 2646 |
| **1321** | 138 | 522 | 530 | 537 | 2487 | 2674 | 2708 | 2741 | 207 | 943 | 991 | 1037 |
| **1322** | 1370 | 2461 | 2522 | 2585 | 2490 | 2765 | 2806 | 2846 | 2137 | 4413 | 4619 | 4844 |
| **1323** | 484 | 1224 | 1422 | 1659 | 2133 | 2951 | 2988 | 3025 | 896 | 2214 | 2635 | 3147 |
| **1324** | 24 | 285 | 484 | 725 | 3578 | 3834 | 3882 | 3930 | 47 | 510 | 888 | 1360 |
| **1325** | 341 | 352 | 442 | 551 | 6621 | 7449 | 8550 | 9651 | 403 | 600 | 794 | 1044 |
| **1326** | 0 | 516 | 577 | 649 | 1351 | 2152 | 2810 | 3467 | 0 | 864 | 1015 | 1159 |
| **1327** | 266 | 292 | 346 | 410 | 6697 | 6734 | 7406 | 8077 | 369 | 493 | 608 | 731 |
| **1328** | 13 | 275 | 279 | 283 | 11935 | 11868 | 12016 | 12165 | 19 | 467 | 481 | 487 |
| **1329** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10867 | 20712 | 20971 | 21230 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1330** | 182 | 206 | 218 | 232 | 24240 | 25226 | 25649 | 26072 | 209 | 379 | 421 | 457 |
| **1331** | 258 | 745 | 869 | 1016 | 15250 | 7869 | 9296 | 10723 | 506 | 1369 | 1679 | 1991 |
| **1332** | 88 | 121 | 159 | 204 | 2544 | 3652 | 4118 | 4585 | 113 | 231 | 312 | 409 |
| **1333** | 366 | 454 | 629 | 841 | 1447 | 1601 | 3619 | 5637 | 906 | 789 | 1159 | 1632 |
| **1334** | 4 | 102 | 699 | 1429 | 390 | 884 | 895 | 906 | 788 | 201 | 1334 | 2730 |
| **1335** | 208 | 207 | 210 | 213 | 764 | 843 | 854 | 864 | 216 | 364 | 359 | 372 |
| **1336** | 714 | 711 | 722 | 732 | 194 | 314 | 318 | 322 | 985 | 1318 | 1411 | 1502 |

<!-- page 516 -->
# Appendix D - Transportation

| | HOUSEHOLDS | | | | EMPLOYMENT | | | | POPULATION | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **TAZ** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** |
| **1337** | 1681 | 2260 | 2296 | 2327 | 1718 | 2235 | 2263 | 2291 | 2276 | 3810 | 4095 | 4368 |
| **1338** | 1937 | 2363 | 2400 | 2432 | 592 | 559 | 566 | 573 | 2570 | 3990 | 4291 | 4589 |
| **1339** | 1527 | 1760 | 1795 | 1829 | 1849 | 1917 | 1941 | 1965 | 2011 | 2866 | 3020 | 3178 |
| **1340** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 442 | 441 | 446 | 452 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1341** | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 24 | 24 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| **1342** | 657 | 752 | 764 | 774 | 84 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 923 | 1245 | 1290 | 1329 |
| **1343** | 1056 | 1327 | 1348 | 1366 | 76 | 128 | 130 | 131 | 1615 | 2205 | 2289 | 2373 |
| **1344** | 234 | 259 | 318 | 388 | 433 | 132 | 134 | 135 | 316 | 429 | 536 | 665 |
| **1345** | 624 | 700 | 711 | 721 | 377 | 408 | 413 | 418 | 979 | 1205 | 1271 | 1339 |
| **1346** | 2368 | 2657 | 2707 | 2754 | 685 | 661 | 670 | 678 | 4213 | 4570 | 4834 | 5102 |
| **1347** | 850 | 1129 | 1147 | 1162 | 921 | 1530 | 1549 | 1568 | 1381 | 1872 | 1940 | 2003 |
| **1348** | 397 | 404 | 410 | 416 | 1355 | 1379 | 1396 | 1413 | 1021 | 679 | 716 | 758 |
| **1349** | 584 | 582 | 591 | 599 | 284 | 396 | 401 | 406 | 1115 | 969 | 1014 | 1058 |
| **1350** | 740 | 737 | 757 | 777 | 351 | 540 | 547 | 554 | 1971 | 1371 | 1436 | 1497 |
| **1351** | 58 | 71 | 324 | 634 | 332 | 918 | 930 | 941 | 141 | 131 | 613 | 1218 |
| **1352** | 1133 | 1220 | 1239 | 1256 | 155 | 177 | 179 | 181 | 2495 | 2268 | 2349 | 2419 |
| **1353** | 574 | 874 | 929 | 992 | 649 | 569 | 576 | 583 | 1352 | 1624 | 1761 | 1911 |
| **1354** | 868 | 2524 | 2671 | 2838 | 1319 | 2105 | 2132 | 2158 | 1237 | 4450 | 4876 | 5326 |
| **1355** | 1105 | 1163 | 1181 | 1197 | 617 | 670 | 678 | 687 | 2015 | 2054 | 2161 | 2257 |
| **1356** | 1856 | 2070 | 2102 | 2131 | 873 | 910 | 922 | 933 | 2898 | 3652 | 3837 | 4000 |
| **1357** | 1767 | 1835 | 1864 | 1889 | 345 | 462 | 468 | 474 | 3019 | 3395 | 3522 | 3648 |
| **1358** | 711 | 774 | 786 | 796 | 1147 | 784 | 794 | 804 | 1632 | 1535 | 1577 | 1619 |
| **1359** | 842 | 864 | 878 | 890 | 888 | 792 | 802 | 812 | 1713 | 1597 | 1658 | 1719 |
| **1360** | 349 | 375 | 381 | 386 | 365 | 314 | 318 | 322 | 648 | 695 | 721 | 746 |
| **1361** | 884 | 1024 | 1067 | 1115 | 628 | 766 | 776 | 785 | 1318 | 1892 | 2015 | 2151 |
| **1362** | 1261 | 1502 | 1544 | 1587 | 922 | 1026 | 1039 | 1052 | 2457 | 2832 | 2922 | 3016 |
| **1363** | 1110 | 1162 | 1180 | 1197 | 283 | 435 | 440 | 446 | 2164 | 2511 | 2504 | 2498 |
| **1364** | 908 | 938 | 955 | 971 | 174 | 334 | 338 | 342 | 2083 | 2026 | 2027 | 2027 |
| **1365** | 392 | 396 | 402 | 408 | 235 | 246 | 249 | 252 | 1001 | 832 | 831 | 834 |
| **1366** | 1140 | 1197 | 1656 | 2210 | 1094 | 1677 | 1698 | 1719 | 1637 | 2140 | 3031 | 4159 |
| **1367** | 1123 | 1315 | 1700 | 2163 | 949 | 1060 | 1073 | 1086 | 1660 | 2664 | 3469 | 4463 |
| **1368** | 425 | 423 | 430 | 436 | 324 | 297 | 300 | 304 | 1062 | 958 | 955 | 957 |
| **1369** | 176 | 175 | 178 | 180 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 398 | 397 | 392 | 392 |
| **1370** | 38 | 39 | 39 | 40 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 94 | 89 | 86 | 87 |
| **1371** | 219 | 256 | 260 | 263 | 1517 | 1632 | 1652 | 1673 | 513 | 580 | 576 | 577 |
| **1433** | 308 | 322 | 375 | 439 | 111 | 140 | 142 | 144 | 679 | 776 | 881 | 1003 |
| **1434** | 1175 | 1221 | 1240 | 1257 | 136 | 178 | 180 | 182 | 2707 | 2942 | 2911 | 2865 |
| **1436** | 802 | 825 | 843 | 862 | 361 | 537 | 544 | 550 | 1773 | 2044 | 2036 | 2032 |
| **1437** | 657 | 674 | 685 | 694 | 93 | 109 | 110 | 112 | 1588 | 1620 | 1586 | 1545 |
| **1438** | 1206 | 1274 | 1313 | 1355 | 701 | 784 | 794 | 804 | 2655 | 2962 | 2932 | 2914 |
| **1439** | 917 | 967 | 982 | 995 | 265 | 280 | 284 | 287 | 2091 | 2247 | 2232 | 2219 |
| **1440** | 252 | 261 | 265 | 269 | 28 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 665 | 606 | 601 | 599 |
| **1441** | 175 | 185 | 188 | 191 | 111 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 434 | 445 | 435 | 425 |

<!-- page 517 -->
# Appendix D - Transportation

| | HOUSEHOLDS | | | | EMPLOYMENT | | | | POPULATION | | | |
| :--- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| **TAZ** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** |
| **1442** | 751 | 769 | 781 | 791 | 160 | 163 | 165 | 167 | 1940 | 1890 | 1861 | 1824 |
| **1443** | 1656 | 1690 | 1716 | 1739 | 412 | 370 | 374 | 379 | 3832 | 4157 | 4086 | 4001 |
| **1444** | 605 | 620 | 630 | 639 | 50 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 1372 | 1525 | 1499 | 1470 |
| **1445** | 939 | 936 | 994 | 1061 | 2147 | 2424 | 2491 | 2558 | 2067 | 1963 | 2082 | 2214 |
| **1446** | 220 | 219 | 222 | 225 | 278 | 293 | 296 | 300 | 593 | 459 | 464 | 469 |
| **1447** | 332 | 368 | 374 | 379 | 141 | 176 | 178 | 180 | 669 | 853 | 841 | 829 |
| **1448** | 1023 | 1041 | 1061 | 1080 | 699 | 751 | 760 | 770 | 2434 | 2389 | 2344 | 2302 |
| **1449** | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 227 | 197 | 194 | 191 |
| **1450** | 384 | 392 | 398 | 404 | 25 | 30 | 30 | 31 | 1074 | 889 | 877 | 863 |
| **1451** | 295 | 296 | 300 | 304 | 86 | 119 | 120 | 122 | 827 | 722 | 705 | 686 |
| **1452** | 715 | 728 | 739 | 749 | 90 | 109 | 110 | 112 | 1960 | 1776 | 1734 | 1688 |
| **1453** | 738 | 751 | 763 | 773 | 384 | 416 | 421 | 426 | 1783 | 1702 | 1684 | 1655 |
| **1454** | 219 | 218 | 221 | 224 | 94 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 484 | 493 | 486 | 479 |
| **1455** | 262 | 261 | 265 | 269 | 268 | 285 | 288 | 292 | 640 | 589 | 574 | 557 |
| **1456** | 646 | 670 | 681 | 690 | 195 | 218 | 220 | 223 | 1373 | 1514 | 1478 | 1433 |
| **1457** | 348 | 366 | 372 | 377 | 29 | 51 | 52 | 52 | 818 | 827 | 807 | 781 |
| **1458** | 595 | 616 | 626 | 634 | 246 | 267 | 270 | 274 | 1476 | 1202 | 1234 | 1261 |
| **1459** | 1742 | 1743 | 1772 | 1798 | 1025 | 1121 | 1135 | 1149 | 3251 | 3400 | 3495 | 3579 |
| **1460** | 396 | 410 | 416 | 422 | 101 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 928 | 852 | 868 | 888 |
| **1461** | 685 | 712 | 723 | 733 | 125 | 186 | 188 | 191 | 1566 | 1479 | 1516 | 1548 |
| **1462** | 145 | 153 | 156 | 158 | 60 | 42 | 42 | 43 | 323 | 319 | 329 | 335 |
| **1463** | 367 | 433 | 446 | 459 | 76 | 288 | 292 | 295 | 1049 | 900 | 932 | 966 |
| **1464** | 968 | 1034 | 1050 | 1064 | 176 | 157 | 159 | 161 | 1843 | 2145 | 2196 | 2240 |
| **1465** | 2594 | 2690 | 2743 | 2795 | 1058 | 1371 | 1388 | 1405 | 4524 | 4848 | 5060 | 5276 |
| **1466** | 2204 | 2195 | 2229 | 2259 | 636 | 902 | 914 | 925 | 4621 | 3935 | 3943 | 3939 |
| **1467** | 605 | 634 | 739 | 864 | 461 | 586 | 594 | 601 | 1731 | 1139 | 1311 | 1514 |
| **1468** | 671 | 776 | 792 | 807 | 225 | 368 | 372 | 377 | 2772 | 2141 | 2107 | 2032 |
| **1469** | 649 | 731 | 742 | 752 | 175 | 219 | 222 | 224 | 2305 | 2019 | 1975 | 1896 |
| **1470** | 1208 | 1298 | 1358 | 1424 | 238 | 276 | 280 | 283 | 3306 | 3386 | 3564 | 3712 |
| **1471** | 670 | 718 | 734 | 751 | 246 | 258 | 261 | 264 | 2100 | 1871 | 1925 | 1956 |
| **1472** | 1167 | 1422 | 1462 | 1504 | 736 | 648 | 656 | 664 | 3154 | 3802 | 3918 | 3997 |
| **1473** | 957 | 1088 | 1105 | 1120 | 485 | 593 | 600 | 608 | 2542 | 2891 | 2950 | 2972 |
| **1474** | 419 | 452 | 459 | 465 | 53 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 1102 | 1173 | 1198 | 1209 |
| **1475** | 863 | 940 | 955 | 968 | 143 | 188 | 190 | 193 | 2147 | 2436 | 2495 | 2519 |
| **1476** | 427 | 469 | 476 | 483 | 74 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 1471 | 1331 | 1291 | 1235 |
| **1477** | 475 | 608 | 618 | 626 | 127 | 120 | 122 | 123 | 1759 | 1724 | 1678 | 1601 |
| **1478** | 517 | 571 | 579 | 587 | 43 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 1673 | 1618 | 1573 | 1504 |
| **1479** | 417 | 445 | 452 | 458 | 116 | 140 | 142 | 144 | 1160 | 1262 | 1228 | 1173 |
| **1480** | 968 | 1025 | 1041 | 1055 | 149 | 277 | 280 | 284 | 2311 | 2657 | 2718 | 2746 |
| **1481** | 437 | 482 | 489 | 496 | 74 | 60 | 60 | 61 | 1060 | 1250 | 1278 | 1292 |
| **1482** | 1326 | 1480 | 1503 | 1523 | 164 | 487 | 493 | 499 | 2953 | 3729 | 3794 | 3836 |
| **1483** | 567 | 584 | 601 | 619 | 173 | 157 | 159 | 161 | 1310 | 1471 | 1516 | 1559 |
| **1484** | 455 | 476 | 483 | 490 | 18 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 1037 | 1310 | 1357 | 1389 |

<!-- page 518 -->
# Appendix D - Transportation

| | HOUSEHOLDS | | | | EMPLOYMENT | | | | POPULATION | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **TAZ** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** | **2010** | **2020** | **2030** | **2040** |
| **1485** | 557 | 588 | 597 | 605 | 54 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 1278 | 1618 | 1678 | 1716 |
| **1486** | 394 | 426 | 433 | 439 | 94 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 945 | 1177 | 1173 | 1164 |
| **1487** | 510 | 522 | 530 | 537 | 144 | 179 | 181 | 183 | 1347 | 1439 | 1433 | 1422 |
| **1488** | 535 | 548 | 556 | 564 | 158 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 1282 | 1481 | 1504 | 1531 |
| **1489** | 501 | 521 | 529 | 536 | 244 | 323 | 327 | 331 | 1084 | 1409 | 1433 | 1457 |
| **1490** | 641 | 645 | 655 | 664 | 276 | 304 | 308 | 312 | 1584 | 1630 | 1664 | 1678 |
| **1491** | 199 | 212 | 215 | 218 | 75 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 470 | 536 | 546 | 547 |
| **1492** | 1486 | 1533 | 1556 | 1577 | 149 | 178 | 180 | 182 | 3591 | 3965 | 4075 | 4129 |
| **1493** | 304 | 310 | 315 | 319 | 15 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 814 | 801 | 826 | 836 |
| **1494** | 244 | 248 | 252 | 255 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 639 | 646 | 669 | 688 |
| **1495** | 231 | 241 | 245 | 248 | 41 | 47 | 48 | 48 | 542 | 625 | 648 | 665 |
| **1496** | 399 | 412 | 418 | 424 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 962 | 1074 | 1109 | 1140 |
| **1497** | 450 | 459 | 466 | 473 | 79 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 1115 | 1196 | 1236 | 1273 |
| **1498** | 1054 | 1100 | 1118 | 1133 | 448 | 394 | 399 | 404 | 2623 | 2863 | 2965 | 3046 |
| **1499** | 1267 | 1306 | 1327 | 1345 | 119 | 102 | 104 | 105 | 3045 | 3263 | 3298 | 3312 |
| **1500** | 843 | 866 | 880 | 892 | 27 | 46 | 46 | 47 | 2185 | 2288 | 2313 | 2302 |
| **1501** | 1163 | 1238 | 1257 | 1274 | 132 | 227 | 230 | 233 | 2532 | 2938 | 3010 | 3072 |
| **1503** | 516 | 554 | 573 | 593 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 1066 | 1313 | 1372 | 1430 |
| **1504** | 971 | 1027 | 1043 | 1057 | 165 | 236 | 239 | 242 | 1893 | 2438 | 2498 | 2548 |
| **1505** | 689 | 712 | 723 | 733 | 151 | 150 | 152 | 154 | 1501 | 1882 | 1904 | 1895 |
| **1506** | 538 | 559 | 567 | 575 | 48 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 1130 | 1475 | 1490 | 1484 |
| **1507** | 341 | 347 | 353 | 359 | 31 | 40 | 40 | 41 | 783 | 821 | 845 | 864 |
| **1508** | 930 | 1062 | 1087 | 1112 | 99 | 106 | 108 | 109 | 2102 | 2686 | 2779 | 2853 |
| **1509** | 424 | 515 | 562 | 617 | 213 | 163 | 165 | 167 | 1143 | 1390 | 1537 | 1695 |
| **1510** | 245 | 266 | 438 | 648 | 66 | 140 | 142 | 144 | 552 | 665 | 1116 | 1675 |
| **1511** | 283 | 567 | 591 | 618 | 584 | 934 | 946 | 957 | 598 | 1389 | 1470 | 1554 |
| **1512** | 747 | 796 | 808 | 819 | 96 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 1708 | 1948 | 2008 | 2060 |
| **1513** | 701 | 702 | 713 | 723 | 115 | 155 | 157 | 159 | 1485 | 1718 | 1771 | 1818 |
| **1514** | 712 | 785 | 797 | 808 | 115 | 136 | 138 | 139 | 1338 | 1838 | 1881 | 1923 |
| **1515** | 354 | 370 | 376 | 381 | 100 | 128 | 130 | 131 | 742 | 867 | 887 | 906 |
| **1516** | 456 | 583 | 672 | 778 | 226 | 226 | 248 | 269 | 836 | 1365 | 1586 | 1852 |
| **1517** | 134 | 283 | 396 | 533 | 225 | 295 | 298 | 302 | 321 | 661 | 932 | 1265 |
| **1518** | 238 | 253 | 269 | 287 | 685 | 814 | 824 | 834 | 782 | 593 | 664 | 730 |
| **1522** | 143 | 148 | 151 | 153 | 585 | 690 | 698 | 707 | 355 | 372 | 377 | 380 |
| **1579** | 36 | 38 | 38 | 39 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 100 | 108 | 111 | 115 |

<!-- page 519 -->
# ROADWAYS

**Functional Classification of Roadways**

Figure 1 identifies the functional classification of roads in Minneapolis as guided by Chapter 1 of the Thrive MSP 2040 Transportation Policy Plan of the Metropolitan Council. These classifications reflect access and level of service provided by different roadways and ensure coordination between transportation and land use decisions. The City of Minneapolis is not proposing any changes to the functional classification of any roads in Minneapolis as part of its 2040 comprehensive plan. The Metropolitan Council provides the following descriptions from their website regarding these classifications.

**Principal Arterials**

The Metropolitan Highway System consists of 915 miles of principal arterials which represents 5.3% of road miles in the region. The principal arterials are the most heavily used roads in the area, carrying about 48% of the total vehicle miles traveled in the region. These roads are usually Interstate highways and other freeways or expressways. They are designed to carry longer trips at higher speeds with minimal land access. These roads are primarily owned and operated by MnDOT, although four are under the jurisdiction of counties. Changes to the Principal Arterial network are rigorously reviewed and must be approved by the MPO.

**Minor Arterials**

There are 2,444 miles of minor arterials roads in the seven county metropolitan area, making up 14.1% of system miles. The region has subdivided the minor arterials into A-minors and Other Arterials (formerly called B-minor arterials). The A-minors are intended to supplement the capacity of the Principal Arterials and can compete for regionally allocated federal funds. There are 1942 centerline miles of these roads which are owned by MnDOT, counties, and cities. The A-minor system carries about 26% of the total vehicles miles traveled in the region.

**Collectors and Local Roads**

There are approximately 14,000 miles of collectors and local streets in the region; their primary function is land access. Local units of governments are responsible for planning for collectors and local roads.

<!-- page 520 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 1: MAP OF FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF EXISTING ROADS.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 521 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2: MAP OF FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSED ROADS.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 522 -->
## SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR ROADWAYS

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3: MAP OF NUMBER OF LANES FOR EXISTING LANES FOR PRINCIPAL AND A-MINOR ARTERIALS.**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 523 -->
### Future Number of Lanes

Number of lanes for proposed roads as well as changes to numbers of lanes for existing roads are generally made on a project by project basis. These decisions are made based on adopted policy from Access Minneapolis, the Complete Streets Policy, and other adopted policy as well as on existing conditions at a given project segment and in the relevant surrounding environment. The City also coordinates with relevant jurisdictional partners regarding changes in the number of lanes for rights of way not under the jurisdiction of the City.

<!-- page 524 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 4: MAP OF ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC.**
SOURCE: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

<!-- page 525 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 5: MAP OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC.**
SOURCE: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

<!-- page 526 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 6: MAP OF FORCASTED 2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES.**
SOURCE: HENNEPIN COUNTY

<!-- page 527 -->
# Appendix D - Transportation

### Rights of Way to Be Preserved
The City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board issued a request for proposals for redevelopment of the Upper Harbor Terminal site in 2016. Figure 7 identifies the parcels of land that are involved in that redevelopment project, which will likely include future rights of way to be preserved. The project will include alteration to addition of new rights of way, and any adopted plans for that project should be referenced regarding exact configuration.

<!-- page 528 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 7: MAP OF OF FUTURE RIGHTS OF WAY TO BE PRESERVED.**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 529 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 8: MAP OF CURRENT REVENUE SCENARIO PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 530 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 9: MAP OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED MNPASS LANES, DEDICATED BUSWAYS, AND BUS-ONLY SHOULDERS.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 531 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 10: AERIAL PHOTO OF COMPLETED I-94/7TH STREET.**

# TRANSIT

Different areas of Minneapolis fall within two transit market area categories as defined in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan: Market Areas I and II. Figure 11 shows how these categories apply to Minneapolis geographically. Text from the Transportation Policy Plan’s Appendix G describes these categories as follows:

### Transit Market Area I

Transit Market Area I has the highest density of population, employment, and lowest automobile availability. These are typically Urban Center communities and have a more traditional urban form with a street network laid out in grid form. Market Area I has the potential transit ridership necessary to support the most intensive fixed-route transit service, typically providing higher frequencies, longer hours, and more options available outside of peak periods.

### Transit Market Area II

Transit Market Area II has high to moderately high population and employment densities and typically has a traditional street grid comparable to Market Area I. Much of Market Area II is also categorized as an Urban Center and it can support many of the same types of fixed-route transit as Market Area I, although usually at lower frequencies or shorter service spans.

### Current Transit Service in Minneapolis

Figures 12-14 show the extent of current transit service in Minneapolis. In general, the focus of service follows a radial pattern centered on Downtown Minneapolis. In addition to the Blue, Green, and A Lines, eight bus routes in Minneapolis are considered high frequency with service every fifteen minutes from 6am-7pm on weekdays and 9am-6pm Saturdays. The focus of most of these routes is into and out of the core of the city, except for routes

<!-- page 532 -->
2 and 21 which both span significant portions of the southern half of the city longitudinally. Many different local service routes fill out the network built by the above-mentioned routes to enable access to a variety of different destinations in the city.

### Planned Transit Service in Minneapolis
A number of different transit improvement projects are underway in Minneapolis. The 2040 TPP projects identified as funded include extensions of the Green and Blue Line, the addition of the Orange Line, and Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Projects on Ford Parkway, Lake Street, Penn Avenue, Chicago and Fremont Avenues, and Hennepin Avenue which are all in different phases of planning and construction. The TPP also identifies partially funded BRT projects as well as multiple potential high frequency transit routes. Future land use and built form guidance in this plan is drafted in part to support existing and future planned transit service.

### Minneapolis’ Roles and Responsibilities regarding Transit Service Development
The City of Minneapolis recognizes the essential role transit plays in the success of its residents and businesses. Transit service is an integral component of reaching the City’s climate and equity goals, to those ends the City supports transit through policies and action steps found in this document and through ongoing activities outlined below. A number of policies and action steps in Minneapolis 2040 address transit directly, principal among them policy 20, which states “Increase the frequency, speed, and reliability of the public transit system in order to increase ridership and support new housing and jobs.” Action step a. of that policy states “Actively shape and define the City’s transit vision and framework, with a focus on outcomes rather than modes.”

Minneapolis regularly partners with Metro Transit to improve transit options and operations in the City. As the street right-of-way managers, the improvements the City makes to increase speed and reliability through street design and operations decisions supports the success of transit for all those in the region that travel to and through Minneapolis. Beyond previous typical involvement in transit projects, the City of Minneapolis is taking steps to more proactively shape its vision for transit through the development of its Transportation Action Plan update, which places much stronger emphasis on transit than past efforts and is being developed in collaboration with agency partners.

### Local Service
Local bus service in Minneapolis serves an important role in helping people access many parts of the city not served by other transit modes. One of the City’s most important roles regarding support for local service is the regulation of levels of development that are supportive of local service. Policies 1, 2, and 4 of Minneapolis 2040 seek to expand access to housing, employment, and commercial goods and services in the city. The Future Land Use and Built Form maps target this expansion based on many criteria with transit service of high importance. Much of the city’s growth in the 20th century coincided with the expansion of transit in the form of a robust streetcar network. In much the same way, permitting of development today must be supportive of activity that ensures the long-term viability of transit in Minneapolis.

### Transitways
The City of Minneapolis has played and will continue to play an active role in the development of multiple transitway projects happening within and across the borders of the city, such as the Southwest LRT, Bottineau, and B-Line and E-Line BRT projects. City involvement may include work regarding City owned property and rights of way as well as property governed or owned by other jurisdictions or parties. Activities the City takes part in may include but are not limited to providing input on design of stations and other facilities, participating in alignment planning and right of way assembly, station area planning, street operations and jurisdictional coordination.

<!-- page 533 -->
### Station Area Planning
The City has regularly engaged in station area planning activities regarding new transitways in the city and will continue to anticipate planning needs regarding station areas for stations that are part of new transitways coming online. In general, a station area is considered to be the area within a half mile radius from the station itself, although the existing conditions of land use may necessitate the determination of alterations to this general pattern. Land use and built form guidance from previously adopted station area plans has been incorporated into the development of the Land Use and Built Form maps of Minneapolis 2040. Multiple policies of Minneapolis 2040, such as Policy 80 Development Near METRO Stations, will further refine the City’s vision for station areas for existing and planned transitways.

### Transit Advantages
Minneapolis prioritizes transit throughput in several different locations in Minneapolis through the temporary or permanent dedication of lanes for transit use, both on City streets as well as the regional netowrk. The MnPASS system is one such application where restrictions on lane usage by pricing or occupancy reduce the volume of private vehicles in specific lanes on the Interstate system, allowing for buses to flow more freely during peak hours of congestion. The City supports the creation of MnPASS for transit advantages to encourage more regional transit use into the downtown core; the conversion of general purpose freeway lanes to MnPASS lanes is preferred over capacity expansion (Policy 20, action step i.).

Bus lanes in the right of way and on shoulders on I35 and I94 provide a similar effect, while a number of bus lanes downtown allow for more efficient onboarding and off boarding for high volumes of passengers commuting to and from downtown. Dedicated busways in the University area set aside entire rights of way for use by transit as well as bicycles and pedestrians with no private vehicles allowed, affording great improvements to reliability and frequency of service in these areas. Washington Avenue SE in particular also demonstrates the potential for reconfiguration of strategically identified rights of way to result in significantly reduced private vehicle trips without adverse impacts to the transportation system as a whole. Minneapolis continues to investigate and make improvements for new transit advantages in Minneapolis to address Minneapolis 2040 goals.

### Access Management Guidelines
Regarding MnDOT and Hennepin County access management guidelines, Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development, Public Works, and other relevant departments review concerns of access management as they relate to development projects, roadway construction and configuration, and consult guidance such as the above as is relevant to the situation when appropriate. policies and actions steps within Minneapolis 2040 will help to refine questions of access management for the future.

### Recommendations from Recent Corridor Studies
The City of Minneapolis has adopted many different small area plans and corridor studies over time which have been incorporated into the development of the Land Use and Built Form map guidance of the Minneapolis 2040 plan. Other recommendations regarding roadway improvements, and changes in access will continue to be considered when found consistent with Minneapolis 2040 and the forthcoming Transportation Action Plan update.

Analysis of Travel Demand Management Strategies for the movement of People and freight into, out of, and within Downtown Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, and MSP Airport.

Policy 22: Downtown Transportation and Policy 28: MSP Airport address strategies regarding transportation to those two particular locations. Further specific geographic transportation guidance regarding these locations, the University of Minnesota, as well as other locations of high use and traffic generation will be addressed in the forthcoming update to the Transportation Action Plan, as well as in other projects as appropriate.

<!-- page 534 -->
### BICYCLING AND WALKING

The Metropolitan Council completed the Regional Bicycle System Study in 2014 and subsequently included the first Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. As described in Chapter 7 of that plan, the guiding principles for that network state it should:

* Overcome physical barriers and eliminate critical system gaps.

* Facilitate safe and continuous trips to regional destinations.

* Function as arteries to connect regional destinations and the transit system year-round.

* Accommodate a broad range of cyclist abilities and preferences to attract a wide variety of users.

* Integrate and/or supplement existing and planned infrastructure.

* Provide improved opportunities to increase the share of trips made by bicycle.

* Connect to local, state, and national bikeway networks.

* Consider opportunities to enhance economic development.

* Be equitably distributed throughout the region.

* Follow spacing guidelines that reflect established development and transportation patterns.

* Consider priorities reflected in adopted plans.

Minneapolis is one of the top-rated cities for biking in the country, in consideration of both ridership and infrastructure. Continued improvement of its bicycle network is crucial to maintain an attractive and comfortable bicycle network and to achievement of many City goals. Continued improvement of Minneapolis’ local network aligns with the development of a regional network guided by the above principles. Minneapolis continues to use capital project opportunities and standalone bicycle projects to advance the quality and comfort of bicycle facilities in the city and create a network that is accessible to the broadest possible range of users, attracting all ages and abilities to a low-stress network. Many existing low-stress facilities on the RBTN in Minneapolis are important today for users who might not feel comfortable using other facilities. The City’s existing and planned bicycle network aligns with the RBTN.

<!-- page 535 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 11: MAP OF TRANSIT MARKET AREAS.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 536 -->
## SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR TRANSIT

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 12: MAP OF TRANSIT ROUTES AND TRANSIT CENTERS.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 537 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 13: MAP OF HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT ROUTES.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 538 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 14: MAP OF TRANSITWAYS AND TRANSIT STATIONS.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 539 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 15: MAP OF PLANNED TRANSITWAYS AND TRANSIT STATIONS.**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 540 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 16: MAP OF EXPRESS TRANSIT ROUTES**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 541 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 17: MAP OF TRANSIT SUPPORT FACILITIES**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 542 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 18: MAP OF EXISTING AND PLANNED BICYCLE FACILITIES**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 543 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 19: MAP OF REGIONAL BICYCLE TRAIL NETWORK AND DESTINATIONS**
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

<!-- page 544 -->
## PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM NEEDS

As appropriate within an urban center with a high volume of pedestrian trips, the City of Minneapolis is actively planning for the improvement of its pedestrian network. The City of Minneapolis adopted the Pedestrian Master Plan component of its current transportation action plan in 2009. The City has since undertaken many different activities under that guidance towards the improvement of the network. The update to Minneapolis' transportation action plan, to be adopted in the Fall of 2019, will include a pedestrian component as one of its seven major sections.

## AVIATION

Aviation is a component of the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan. Several aviation-related topics are required to be included in the City's comprehensive plan. Most aviation guidance for the City of Minneapolis relates to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Although the airport is located outside of Minneapolis, the City is within its Airport Influence Area.

Policy guidance for aviation is located both in this appendix and in Policy 28, MSP Airport.

### OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND NOISE

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, one of the 20 busiest airports in the world, is an economic driver in the region and the state. Operational activity conflicts with existing neighborhoods in Minneapolis which are predominantly residential in the airport vicinity. These neighborhoods were developed before the airport, thus there are few preventive measures available to ensure a greater degree of land use compatibility with the airport. While the City has no direct control over airport operations, it actively encourages and advocates measures to reduce noise impacts in the airport environs.

In 2017, there were 415,703 total operations (arrivals and departures) at MSP. The draft 2035 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan (not adopted) forecasts 511,000 operations in 2035. While this forecast is lower than the historic peak of 540,727 operations in 2004, residents affected by MSP can expect increased noise over existing conditions as the number of flights increases. The following summarizes the noise forecast in the draft 2035 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan:

* The 2035 forecast 65 DNL noise contour is 53.8% larger than the 2014 base case 65 DNL noise contour (for all communities surrounding MSP).

* The 2035 forecast 60 DNL noise contour is 56.1% larger than the 2014 base case 60 DNL noise contour (for all communities surrounding MSP).

* In Minneapolis, 5,283 single-family homes and 1,273 multi-family homes are inside the 2014 base case 60 DNL noise contour.

* In Minneapolis, 10,500 single-family homes and 2,864 multi-family units are inside the 2035 forecast 60 DNL contour.

### REGIONAL AIRSPACE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY

The Metropolitan Council has outlined in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for communities surrounding the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. A copy of Table L-03 of these guidelines is included in this appendix, and the guidelines are herein incorporated into the City's comprehensive plan.

<!-- page 545 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 20: MAP OF AIRPORTS**
SOURCE: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

<!-- page 546 -->
| Land Use Category | Compatibility with Aircraft Noise Levels | | | | | | | | |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Type of Development | \- | New Development and Major Redevelopment | \- | \- | \- | Infill Development and Reconstruction or Additions to Existing Structures | \- | \- | \- |
| Noise Exposure Zones | 1 DNL 75+ | 2 DNL 74-70 | 3 DNL 69-65 | 4 DNL 64-60 | Buffer Zone | 1 DNL 75+ | 2 DNL 74-70 | 3 DNL 69-65 | 4 DNL 64-60 | Buffer Zone |
| **Residential** | | | | | | | | | | |
| Single / Multiplex with Individual Entrance | INCO | INCO | INCO | INCO | | COND | COND | COND | COND | |
| Multiplex / Apartment with Shared Entrance | INCO | INCO | COND | PROV | | COND | COND | PROV | PROV | |
| Mobile Home | INCO | INCO | INCO | COND | | COND | COND | COND | COND | |
| Educational, Medical, Schools, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes | INCO | INCO | INCO | COND | | COND | COND | COND | PROV | |
| **Cultural / Entertainment/Recreational** | | | | | | | | | | |
| Indoor | COND | COND | COND | PROV | | COND | COND | COND | PROV | |
| Outdoor | COND | COND | COND | COND | | COND | COND | COND | COMP | |
| Office / Commercial/Retail | COND | PROV | PROV | COMP | | COND | PROV | PROV | COMP | |
| **Services** | | | | | | | | | | |
| Transportation-Passenger Facilities | COND | PROV | PROV | COMP | | COND | PROV | PROV | COMP | |
| Transient Lodging | INCO | COND | PROV | PROV | | COND | COND | PROV | PROV | |
| Other medical, Health & Educational Services | COND | PROV | PROV | COMP | | COND | PROV | PROV | COMP | |
| Other Services | COND | PROV | PROV | COMP | | COND | PROV | PROV | COMP | |
| Industrial/Communication / Utility | PROV | COMP | COMP | COMP | | PROV | COMP | COMP | COMP | |
| Agriculture Land/Water Areas / Resource Extraction | COMP | COMP | COMP | COMP | | COMP | COMP | COMP | COMP | |

NOTE: COMP = Compatible; PROV = Provisional; COND = Conditional; INCO = Incompatible.

#### FIGURE 21: TABLE L-2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES .
SOURCE: 2040 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

Also in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan is Table L-2, outlining current preventive and corrective land use measures in place for MSP and other regional airport communities. All items in the MSP column apply to Minneapolis.

<!-- page 547 -->
### Table L-2: Current Land Use Measures

| Preventive Land Use Measures | MSP International Airport Communities | Other Regional Airport Communities |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | |
| Amend local land use plans to bring them into conformance with regional land use compatibility guidelines for aircraft noise. | YES | YES |
| Apply zoning performance standards. | YES | YES |
| Establish a public information program | YES | YES |
| Revise Building code. | YES/MS 473.192 | YES/MS 473.192 |
| Fair property disclosure policy. | YES/Usually applied by developer or builder. | YES/Usually applied by developer or builder. |
| Dedication of aviation easements/releases. | YES | YES |
| Transfer of development rights. | NO | NO |
| Land banking (acquisition of undeveloped property) | NO | NO |

| Corrective Land Use Measures | MSP International Airport Communities | Other Regional Airport Communities |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | |
| **Airport Developed property:** | | |
| Within RPZs | YES | YES |
| Within Runway Safety Zones | YES | FCM&STP |
| Within DNL 70 | YES | Airports |
| Part 150 sound insulation program. | YES | NO |
| Property purchase guarantee | NO | NO |
| **Creation of sound barriers** | | |
| Walls | YES | |
| Berms | YES | YES (Proposed in the FCM and |
| Ground runup enclosures | YES | ANE LTCPs) |

**FIGURE 22: L-2 CURRENT LAND USE MEASURES**
SOURCE: 2040 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 548 -->
The City of Minneapolis Zoning Code addresses regional airspace and land use compatibility in Article XV – AP Airport Overlay District. The ordinance contains provisions for the protection of regional airspace from obstructions, addresses land use safety zoning and height limitation zoning, and requires additional noise attenuation for new and expanded residences in areas that have received sound insulation program measures from the Metropolitan Airports Commission.

The regulations are as follows:

551.1110. - General restrictions.

(a) No use shall be made of any land in any of the Safety Zones A, B or C that creates or causes interference with the operations of radio or electronic facilities on the airport or with radio or electronic communications between airport and aircraft, makes it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights or other lights, results in glare in eyes of pilots using the airport, impairs visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise endangers the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft.

All permitted, conditional, and interim principal and accessory uses allowed in the primary zoning district are allowed in the AP Overlay District with the exception of the following prohibited uses:

(1) Within the portion of the AP Overlay District designated as Safety Zone A as contained in Section V Land Use Safety Zoning of the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and shown on MSP Zoning Map Safety Zones-Plates SZ-8, SZ-9, SZ-10, and SZ-11 there shall be no structures or trees, except structures related to airport operations or air navigation as allowed in a Runway Protection Zone by Federal laws and regulations or by FAA advisory circulars. For all runways, Safety Zone A is a trapezoidal shape beginning two hundred (200) feet off the end of the runway pavement and which is one thousand (1,000) feet wide centered on the runway centerline extended two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet outward and shall be at that point one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) feet wide centered on the runway centerline extended. Safety Zone A conforms to the federally described Runway Protection Zone for precision instrument runways.

(2) Within the portion of the AP Overlay District designated as Safety Zone B as contained in Section V Land Use Safety Zoning of the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and shown on MSP Zoning Map Safety Zones-Plates SZ-8, SZ-9, and SZ-10, the following uses are prohibited unless a variance permitting the use is granted by the MSP Board of Adjustment established by the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance:

a. Amphitheaters;
b. Campgrounds;
c. Churches;
d. Fuel storage tank farms;
e. Above-ground fuel tanks;
f. Gasoline stations;
g. Hospitals;
h. Nursing homes;
i. Residential uses (including low, medium and high density residential uses) except in an Established Residential Neighborhood In A Built-up Urban Area;
j. Schools;
k. Stadiums;
l. Theaters;
m. Trailer courts;
n. Ponds or other uses that might attract waterfowl or other birds such as putrescible waste disposal operations, wastewater treatment facilities and associated settling ponds, and dredge spoil containment areas; provided, however, the prohibition on ponds or other uses that might attract waterfowl or other birds shall not apply to acres below an elevation of eight hundred (800) feet above mean sea level along the Bluff of the Minnesota River.

<!-- page 549 -->
Safety Zone B is coincident with the outer boundary of Safety Zone A and extends uniformly outward for a distance of four thousand five hundred (4,500) feet to an ultimate width of three thousand one hundred (3,100) feet centered on the runway centerline extended.

(3) Within the portion of the AP Overlay District designated as Safety Zone C as contained in Section V Land Use Safety Zoning of the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance and shown on MSP Zoning Map Safety Zones-Plates SZ-2, SZ-3, SZ-4, SZ-7, SZ-8, SZ-9, and SZ-10, the general use restrictions applicable to all Safety Zones apply. (2008-Or-089, § 2, 11-7-08)

### 551.1120. - Exemptions.

(a) Those portions of the AP Overlay District identified as Established Residential Neighborhood In a Built Up Urban Area and shown on MSP Zoning Maps Plates E-2, E-3,E-4,E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, and E-10 are subject to the following exemptions:

(1) A low density residential structure or isolated low density residential lot which existed in an Established Residential Neighborhood In a Built Up Urban Area on or before January 1, 1978, and all other land uses which existed in an Established Residential Neighborhood In a Built Up Urban Area on or before June 30, 1979, shall be subject to the height restrictions and general use restrictions, but shall not be subject to the use restrictions of Safety Zones A or B. In addition such structure, lot or use shall be deemed a conforming use that shall not be prohibited under the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance.

(2) In Safety Zone B in an Established Residential Neighborhood in a Built Up Urban Area or in an area immediately adjacent to such a Neighborhood, existing low, medium, and high density residential uses may be improved and expanded and new low medium and high density residential uses may be developed subject to height restrictions, general use restrictions and noise attenuation requirements. (2008-Or-089, § 2, 11-7-08)

### 551.1130. - Height.

All structures in the AP Overlay District shall be subject to the height restrictions imposed by the 2004 MSP Zoning Ordinance or the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, whichever is more restrictive and subject to the following:

(1) Airport Overlay District. Except as necessary and incidental to MSP Airport operations, no new structure shall be constructed or established; no existing structure shall be altered, changed, rebuilt, repaired, or replaced; and no tree shall be allowed to grow or be altered, repaired or replaced, or replanted in anyway so as to project above any Airspace Surface as shown on MSP Zoning Map Airspace Zones-Plates A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-7, A-8, A-9, and A-10

(2) Airport Permit. Within the Airport Overlay District an airport zoning permit must be applied for and granted from the City of Minneapolis if the height of a proposed structure or tree exceeds the maximum construction height as shown on MSP Maximum Construction Heights Without a Permit-Plates MCH-1, MCH-2, MCH-3, MCH-4, MCH-7, MCH-8, MCH-9, and MCH-10.

(3) Other notification and permits. The applicant is also subject to notification requirements and approvals of Minnesota Office of Aeronautics regarding notification criteria for airspace obstruction and Federal Aviation Administration’s permitting and review for Notices of Proposed Construction (FAA Form-7460-8) as set forth in Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Part 77. Note that both MnDOT Aeronautics and FAA criteria extend beyond the boundaries of the Airport Overlay District. (2008-Or-089, § 2, 11-7-08)

The City of Minneapolis also recognizes requirements regarding the protection of the region’s general

<!-- page 550 -->
# Appendix D - Transportation

airspace. The relevant notification criteria for airspace obstruction as defined under the Minnesota Aeronautic Rules and Regulations is as follows:

Notification: Any sponsor who proposes any construction or alteration that would exceed a height of 200 feet above ground level at the site, or any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending upward and outward at a slope of 100:1 from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public airport shall notify the Commissioner [note: Minnesota Department of Transportation] at least 30 days in advance.

This local reporting requirement is in addition to the Federal permitting/review process involving proposal where FAA Form 7460-8 is required.

### Heliports
There are no heliports in the City nor does the City of Minneapolis Zoning Code provide for the establishment of such use. Medical helistops are allowed as a conditional use on the property of a hospital under Chapter 522.40, 538.910 and 540.450 of the City Code and in conformance with state and federal regulations.

There are four licensed helistops in Minneapolis:

* Hennepin County Medical Center
* Abbott Northwestern Hospital
* Fairview Riverside Medical Center
* Fairview University Hospital

### Seaplane Operations
Seaplane activity is prohibited on metropolitan area lakes unless designated by Minnesota Rules 8800.2800. No seaplane activity is allowed on any lakes in the City.

### Navigation Aides and Special Facilities
There are no aviation navigational aids or special aviation facilities located in the City.

## FREIGHT
As a central city with the metropolitan region as well as the state of Minnesota, Minneapolis features many different generators of freight movement with the city. Figure 21 shows the location of heavy rail track within the city as well as property with the proposed Minneapolis 2040 land use guidance of Production and Processing. In general, property guided in this category has historically been zoned for industrial uses and will continue to be into the future. Much of the freight activity within the city coincides with these areas. Other generators of freight include Downtown Minneapolis and major shopping centers such as the Quarry and Minnehaha Mall. Issues relating to roadways and freight movement in Minneapolis will be evaluated as part of the process of the forthcoming update to the City's Transportation Action Plan

<!-- page 551 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 23: MAP OF HEAVY RAIL AND MINNEAPOLIS 2040 PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING GUIDED LAND**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 552 -->
# Appendix E

Resources and Resilience

This appendix provides supporting content for Resilence, Natural Resources, and Special Resource Protection.

<!-- page 553 -->
# INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides supporting content for Resilience, Natural Resources, and Special Resource Protection.

## AGGREGATE RESOURCES

Aggregate resources are not available within the City of Minneapolis.

## SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

The gross solar potential and gross solar rooftop potential are expressed in megawatt hours per year (Mwh/yr), and are based on the solar map for Minneapolis. These calculations estimate the total potential resource before removing areas unsuitable for solar development or factors related to solar energy efficiency.

| City | Gross Potential (Mwh/yr) | Rooftop Potential (Mwh/yr) | Gross Generation Potential (Mwh/yr)* | Rooftop Generation Potential (Mwh/yr)* |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Minneapolis** | **67,672,348** | **13,956,006** | **6,767,234** | **1,395,600** |

* In general, a conservative assumption for panel generation is to use 10% efficiency for conversion of total insolation into electric generation. These solar resource calculations provide an approximation of each community’s solar resource. This baseline information can provide the opportunity for a more extensive, community-specific analysis of solar development potential for both solar gardens and rooftop or accessory use installations. For most communities, the rooftop generation potential is equivalent to between 30% and 60% of the community’s total electric energy consumption. The rooftop generation potential does not consider ownership, financial barriers, or building-specific structural limitations.

<!-- page 554 -->
Gross Solar Potential
### City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

**Gross Solar Potential**
**(Watt-hours per Year)**

High : 1277453

Low : 900001

Solar Potential under 900,000 watt-hours per year
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
Wetlands and Open Water Features

Source: University of Minnesota U-Spatial Statewide Solar Raster.

**FIGURE 1: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA SOLAR SUITABILITY ANALYSIS MAP**
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

<!-- page 555 -->
# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

<<FIGURE>>

### Minneapolis - Saint Paul Solar in the Cities Initiative

Minneapolis and Saint Paul are pleased to be recognized as Solar America Cities. Through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar America Cities partnership, 26 major U.S. cities are working to accelerate the adoption of solar energy technologies for a cleaner, more secure energy future. The Minneapolis Saint Paul *Solar in the Cities* Initiative has an aggressive goal of increasing solar capacity 500% in the Twin Cities during the two years covered by the grant period.

**Five priority areas:**
* City and state policies
* Financing mechanisms
* Integrating solar in city infrastructure
* Building public awareness
* Training and education

The Solar America Cities grant allows Minneapolis and Saint Paul to dedicate resources to identify strategies that will result in solar friendly policies, practices, and regulations. The grant includes technical expertise from the National Renewable Energy Lab in the areas of policy, technology, research, financing, and education.

**Solar in the Cities Initiative includes partnerships with:**
* Minnesota Department of Commerce
* Xcel Energy
* League of Minnesota Cities
* Fresh Energy
* International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
* District Energy St. Paul
* Minnesota Renewable Energy Society
* Center for Energy and Environment
* SolarFlow Energy
* Neighborhood Energy Connection

**Accomplishments to Date:**

* Secured $1 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Solar Market Transformation Grant which leverages and additional $1.2 million from District Energy St. Paul.
* Secured $2.8 million in additional Federal Stimulus funds plus approximately $1 million in rebates and matching funds for solar installations along the Energy Innovation Corridor between downtown Saint Paul and downtown Minneapolis.
* Coordinated multi-stakeholder working group that resulted in passage of strong solar legislation in 2009 and advancing 2010 legislative initiatives.
* Installed two solar charging systems for plug-in hybrid cars that is part of HourCar, a local non-profit’s car sharing program in order to showcase emerging opportunities.
* Commissioned Net Metering “White” Paper providing an overview national trends and best management opportunities for Minnesota.
* Sponsored solar trainings for regulators, local government officials and solar instructors.
* Creating a solar resource mapping process to proactively identify where solar energy opportunities can be incorporated into new development and redevelopment, such as along the Energy Innovation Corridor.
* Developed a real-time solar evaluation model to more accurately predict the value of solar energy for end-users and utilities.

Anne Hunt, City of Saint Paul
anne.hunt@ci.stpaul.mn.us
651-266-8520

Gayle Prest, City of Minneapolis
gayle.prest@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
612-673-2931

September 8, 2010

**FIGURE 2: MINNEAPOLIS - SAINT PAUL SOLAR IN CITIES INITIATIVE**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 556 -->
# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

<<FIGURE>>

Before approval and issuance of permit(s) for solar thermal/photovoltaic energy installations, applicant shall submit the following minimum information. Required drawings shall be scaled and dimensioned, readable, and legible. Additional information may be requested for the building permit.

In addition to the building permit, an electrical permit will be required. Electrical permits are issued by the State of Minnesota, Department of Labor and Industry's Electrical Division. For more information, call (651) 284-5026 or go to http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/etrakit_electrical.asp. Further permitting may be required.

Building integrated solar installations, where the solar collector replaces or substitutes for an architectural or structural component of a building, such as a roof, shingle, or awning, do not require completion of this checklist separately from the permit application for the building, structure, or building modification.

Please provide the following information:

**GENERAL INFORMATION**

1. A fully completed building permit application, providing the following information:
   * Project address
   * Owner's name, address, phone number
   * Plan preparer's name, address, phone number
   * Description of proposed work, including both solar equipment installation and all associated construction
2. Contractor's name and license: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
3. Name of installation company: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
4. System information
   a. For electric (photovoltaic) systems:
      System's kW rating (DC): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
      System designation: (circle one) inter-tie stand alone
      Does the system include battery backup or an uninterrupted power supply (UPS)?
      (circle one) Yes No
      If Yes, give the number, size and location of the batteries:
      \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
   b. Minnesota Rules (1325.1100 Solar Energy, Supb. 5a. Certification) states that solar collectors sold, offered for sale, or installed in the state must bear a Solar Rating and Certification Corporation (SRCC) certification seal evidencing the manufacturer's compliance with the design, reliability, durability, safety, operation, servicing, installation, and manual criteria contained in the Operation Guidelines and Standards in the Minnesota State Building Code (Documents OG-100, OG-300-95, and Standard OG-100-86) and must provide every prospective buyer with a copy of the certification award issued by the SRCC (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=1325.1100). The SRCC is part of the International Code Council (ICC).
      For more information about their certification programs or directory of certified products, visit http://www.solar-rating.org/about/purpose.html.
      Is the system SRCC certified? The inspector will look for this seal onsite.
      (circle one) Yes No

Updated 07/17

**FIGURE 3: RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS PERMIT PAGE 1**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 557 -->
# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

<<FIGURE>>

**ROOFTOP SOLAR INSTALLATIONS**

1. Roof type: (circle one) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Flat roof (nominal pitch) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sloped; identify pitch: \_\_\_\_\_\_
2. Existing roofing type (shingles, tile, metal, ballasted, membrane, etc.): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
3. Number of roofing layers that will be under panels (no more than 2 layers of roof shingles are allowed): \_\_\_\_\_\_
4. Age and condition of roofing material: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
   Has the homeowner been made aware of the lifespans of the existing roof and a new solar installation?
   (circle one) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No
5. Is the equipment to be **flush-mounted** to the roof (such that the collector surface is parallel to the roof)?
   (circle one)Yes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No
   *If Yes,*
   a. Does the roof structure use 2x4 or larger rafters, spaced no wider than 24 inches on center?
   (circle one)Yes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No
   *If No, (i.e. if non-flush-mounted)*
   a. Is the finished pitch of the collector at or less than a 12/12 pitch?
   (circle one)Yes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No
   b. Is the collector or racking system fastened to the roof within one foot of the roof peak?
   (circle one)Yes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No
   c. Is the collector or racking system fastened to each rafter passing under the collector? (circle one)
   Yes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No
   d. And, is the horizontal span (roof span dimension) of the rafter less than 7.75 feet for 2X4 rafters or 11.5 feet for 2X6 rafters?
   (circle one)Yes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No
6. Roof decking and structural supports should all be in good condition without visible roof sag/deflection. Is the roof structure in good condition, having no visible sag, cracking or splintering of rafters, or other potential structural defects? (circle one) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No
   * Provide photos showing the condition of the roof structure (rafters in the attic space), if accessible.
   - or -
   * Provide exterior photos, showing a side view of the roof, if accessible.
7. If the answer is "No" for any parts to questions 5 through 6 above, provide a study or statement regarding the proposed solar installation and all proposed structural modifications as required and approved (stamped) by a Minnesota licensed/certified structural engineer.
   * Provide construction plans denoting the roof structure and any modifications to the structure if required, as well as the method of installation of solar collector on the subject property.
   - or -
   * Provide a letter from the engineer, specifically addressing the subject property, explaining its roof structure, any required modifications, as well as method of installation of the solar collector on the subject property.

Updated 07/17

**FIGURE 4: RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS PERMIT PAGE 2**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 558 -->
# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

<<FIGURE>>

**Required Drawings and Plans: (See next three pages for examples.)**

8. Building cross section detail (see example) with complete notation of method of fastening equipment to the roof of the subject property, including the following details:
    * Identification of rafter size, spacing, and span dimension
    * Approximation of roof slope
    * Identification of style, diameter, length of embedment of bolts (i.e. 5/16[^th]" lags with minimum 3” embedment into framing, blocking, or bracing.)

    Is the system to be mounted according to panel and rack manufacturer’s instructions?
    (circle one) Yes No
    If No, explain and attach explanation if more space is need.

---

9. Elevation of structure illustrating the appearance of the proposed solar installation (see example) indicating the finished height of the system above roof surface.
10. Site plan indicating the buildings and features of the property (see example). The site plan shall show the following:
    * Property line locations
    * Location of all structures
    * Setback from property lines
    * Location of solar panel installations
    * Solar panel setback dimension from the peak and all edges of the roof. (To avoid turbulence and uplift, the suggested set back from edges/ridges is 2” per 1” lift from roof surface. E.g., for an array which is mounted 4” off the roof surface, there would be an 8” setback.)
    * Main service location
    * Solar easement across adjoining properties (if applicable)

Updated 07/17

Page | 3

**FIGURE 5: RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS PERMIT PAGE 3**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 559 -->
# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Permit Applicant Checklist for Residential Solar Energy Installations

## BUILDING CROSS SECTION

(1) Roof construction
(2) Rafter size
(3) Rafter spacing
(4) Bolt style, diameter, and embedment length
(5) Rafter span dimension
(6) Approximate roof slope
(7) Mounted solar system

1, 2, 3, 4
Rafters: 2X4 rafters, spaced 16" on center;
Decking: 5/8" plywood;
Roof Cover: one layer asphalt shingles;
Lag Bolts: ⅜" bolts with 2 ½" length

7 4'X8' Solar Panel module raised 1', flush mounted to roof with manufacturer approved bracing/brackets

run
rise
5 4:12 pitch

span
6 12.6' span

Updated 07/17

Page | 4

**FIGURE 6: RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS PERMIT PAGE 4**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 560 -->
# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Minneapolis City of Lakes
Permit Applicant Checklist for Residential Solar Energy Installations

ELEVATION

**Flush-Mounted:**
(collector surface is parallel to the roof surface)

1' difference between panel surface and roof surface

**Non-Flush-Mounted:**
(collector surface is at an angle to roof surface)

5' difference between panel surface and roof surface

1' difference between panel surface and roof surface

<<FIGURE>>

Updated 07/17

**FIGURE 7: RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS PERMIT PAGE 5**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 561 -->
# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Permit Applicant Checklist for Residential Solar Energy Installations

## SITE PLAN

<<FIGURE>>

(1) Property line locations
(2) Location of all structures
(3) Setback from property lines
(4) Location of solar panel installations
(5) Solar panel setback dimension from roof peak and edges
(6) Main service location

Updated 07/17

**FIGURE 8: RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS PERMIT PAGE 6**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 562 -->
# SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SOLAR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

<<FIGURE>>

## GROUND SOLAR INSTALLATIONS

For **ground-mounted solar energy systems**, the installation must meet property line setback standards for solar accessory structures, as identified in the Minneapolis Zoning Code: Title 20, Chapter 535 – Regulations of General Applicability, Article XII – Solar Energy Systems, 535.820-870 ([www.municode.com/library/mn/minneapolis/codes/code_of_ordinances](http://www.municode.com/library/mn/minneapolis/codes/code_of_ordinances)).

**Required Drawings and Plans: (See previous examples.)**

1. Elevation of structure illustrating the appearance of the proposed solar installation (see example) indicating the finished height of the system above ground.
2. Site plan indicating the buildings and features of the property (see example). The site plan shall show the following:
    * Property line locations
    * Location of all structures
    * Setback from property lines
    * Location of panel installations
    * Main service location
3. Property lines and setbacks are required to be verified.
    * Provide a completed survey.
    * \- or -
    * Denote *property pins* on site plan, as located by homeowner or contractor.

## HERITAGE PRESERVATION

Exterior work, including installation of solar systems, within city designation heritage preservation sites and districts is subject to additional review and approval by administrative staff or the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of city permits. For a city map showing individual sites and district boundaries go to the city website ([www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/hpc/landmarks/](http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/hpc/landmarks/)). You may also search a specific address by using “property look-up” at [www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/propertyinfo/](http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/propertyinfo/)).

1. Is the installation address within a heritage preservation district, or on a landmark property or building?
    (circle one) Yes No

Updated 07/17

**FIGURE 9: RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS PERMIT PAGE 7**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 563 -->
# Appendix F

Water Resources Management Plan

This appendix provides supporting content for wastewater related policies and satisfies the Metropolitan Council requirements related to wastewater.

<!-- page 564 -->
# Executive Summary

## Introduction

This document is developed in accordance with the regulatory requirements listed below under the Purpose heading. This Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) initiates the fifth decade of the City of Minneapolis (City) programs and practices that have modernized the sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage systems that directly impact water resources in the City.

The modern era of water resource management was initiated in the 1960s when the focus was on the water quality of the Mississippi River. Ongoing overflows of combined sewage and stormwater had resulted in a noticeable decline in the River’s water quality. This approach set in the 1960s, continuing into the 1970s, aimed to reduce the occurrence of these overflows through separation of the sanitary sewer and stormwater systems in conjunction with a City-wide street paving program. In the 1980s, the City began to focus on Bassett Creek, Minnehaha Creek, and Shingle Creek water quality through partnership with watershed organizations. In the 1990s, while the sewer separation was winding down and the watershed management programs were growing, the City expanded its water quality focus to encompass the entire City through the initiation of activities designed to improve the quality of the stormwater runoff. Actions during that era included targeted projects such as the Chain of Lakes Water Quality Improvement Project, and initiation of City-wide activities such as increased frequency of street cleaning. Also in the 1990s, the City began a program to construct stormwater basins and other stormwater capacity improvements aimed at mitigation of areas of ongoing street and building flooding. In the 2000s, the focus shifted back to the sanitary sewers to locate and eliminate sources of clear water to the sanitary sewer, which was identified as necessary to fully eliminate the occurrence of infrequent overflows from the sanitary sewers to the Mississippi River. Primary activities implemented included identification and elimination of rooftop drainage connections to the sanitary sewers, and identification and elimination of other sources of inflow/infiltration (I/I). By the 2010s, all of these activities initiated since the 1960s were successfully working together to improve and protect the water resources within the City.

**Sailboats on Lake Harriet**

<<FIGURE>>
*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

> With the development of this WRMP, the City aims to fully integrate management of the sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage systems to create a holistic approach to water resource management.

<!-- page 565 -->
This approach is founded in the City’s commitment to protect water resources in a manner that respects the needs and demands of all water-related actions, such that activities related to the management of one system are to the benefit, and not detriment, of the other system.

# Purpose

The Minneapolis Vision is the foundation of the City’s goals and strategic direction that guides management of the City and serves as the foundation for programs and activities implemented as part of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and this Water Resource Management Plan.

*The Minneapolis Vision is that the City is a growing and vibrant world-class city with a flourishing economy and a pristine environment, where all people are safe, healthy, and have equitable opportunities for success and happiness.*

Successful management of the City’s water resources requires a comprehensive program that respects the needs of the water resource while concurrently meeting regulatory requirements and achieving sound fiscal management. The City has prepared this WRMP as a comprehensive planning document that balances these demands as the City conserves, protects, and manages its water resources. This WRMP:

* Compiles, summarizes, and references efforts of agencies, organizations, and departments of the City and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB). Links are provided to allow users of this report to access specific information that is summarized, but not fully covered, in this WRMP.
* Reviews the current state of the City’s water resources in the context of sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage system goals and policies, ordinances, operations and maintenance practices, flood mitigation, and other water resource goals.

**Cedar Lake Road Loch Ness Sculpture by Bruce Stillman**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

* Establishes reasonable and affordable goals that support achievable results within the established regulatory and management structure.
* Lays out the City’s approach to assessment, planning, and implementation that is used in the event that a new project or program is required to achieve water resource management goals.

This WRMP is developed in accordance with these multiple regulatory requirements:

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 566 -->
* Local Water Plan requirements of Minnesota Statute Section 103b.235 and corresponding Rule 8410.0160.

* Water resource management plan content of the 2018 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan, as required in Minnesota Statute Section 473.859, and as defined in Metropolitan Council’s *Thrive 2040 Water Resource Policy Plan*.

* Municipal sewage collection plan content as required by Minnesota Statute 473.513, and as defined in Metropolitan Council’s *Thrive 2040 Water Resource Policy Plan*.

* Supplementary Local Water Plan requirements specific to each of the four watershed management organizations with jurisdiction in the City of Minneapolis: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC), Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO), and Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC).

## Content

Detailed information on water resource management in the City of Minneapolis is organized into six sections in this WRMP:

## Section 1 – History and Overview of Minneapolis Water Resources

Section 1 describes significant background information that is the foundation of the City of Minneapolis water resource management program. Information includes:

* The history of the City’s sewer systems.

* Current trends in the City’s water resource management.

* The categories of water resources, as defined by the City: surface water, sanitary collection systems, and stormwater drainage systems.

* Required content and approvals for this WRMP.

* Procedures to amend this WRMP.

**Quaking Bog**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

* The role of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Integrated Permit requirements for annual water resource management reports.

<!-- page 567 -->
# Section 2 – Regulatory Requirements, Goals, and Policies

Section 2 summarizes regulatory requirements that influence water resource management in the City. The section outlines Federal, State, and Regional requirements and associated programs, organized according to the following public agencies that establish water resource management requirements that affect the City:

*   United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
*   United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
*   Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR).
*   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
*   Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR).
*   Metropolitan Council.
*   Hennepin County.
*   Watershed Management Organizations: BCWMC, MCWD, MWMO, and SCWMC.

Collaboration with these multiple regulatory organizations is important to successful water resource management. Section 2 also includes:

*   The City and MPRB goals, strategic direction, and water resource guiding principles that direct water resource management.
*   Responsibilities for implementation of goals and policies.
*   Descriptions of sanitary sewer and water resource management cooperative agreements.
*   Summaries of how the City complies with major regulatory requirements.

*Section 2 outlines that the City collaborates with regulatory partners on public and private project development and on ordinances, guidance documents, and policy updates that impact water resources.*

# Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment

Section 3 provides an extensive inventory and detailed characteristics of the physical environment of the City, with an emphasis on the water resources that exist within the municipal boundary of the City:

*   Thirteen (13) lakes, four (4) streams, and a 12-mile segment of the Mississippi River.
*   Thirty-eight (38) miles of shoreline are contained within the 6,400 acres of MPRB-owned parks.
*   30.61 inches of average precipitation falls each year in the form of rain and snow.
*   Four (4) watershed management agencies oversee and guide water resource management.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 568 -->
Section 3 also contains detailed information of the City’s population, parks, neighborhoods, soils, climate, bedrock, geology, topography, land use, zoning, wetlands, groundwater, and source water protection.

Detailed information is summarized for each of the waterbodies within the City, plus an additional 10 waterbodies outside the City’s boundaries which receive stormwater runoff discharges from the City’s stormwater drainage system. The information provided for each waterbody includes a summary of the physical characteristics (MNDNR ID number, MNDNR classification, MN Chapter 7050 use classification, surface area or length, downstream waterbody, watershed area, and watershed management organization), and a summary of known water quality parameters and values. The waterbody history, inventory of studies, and completed capital improvement projects are also included.

The MPRB is an important partner involved in ongoing monitoring of the water quality of many of the City’s lakes and streams. Information collected by the MPRB, which is supplemented by water quality monitoring by watershed organizations, has been used by the MPCA to assess which waterbodies have water quality that is below the state standards, termed impairments. As of 2018, the MPCA has determined that the impairments listed in Table ES-1 exist in Minneapolis waterbodies:

**Table ES.1 – Existing Impairments in City of Minneapolis Waterbodies**

| Impairment | Waterbody |
| :--- | :--- |
| Aquatic Consumption (contaminants found in fish tissue) | <ul><li>Brownie Lake</li><li>Cedar Lake</li><li>Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska</li><li>Lake Harriet</li><li>Lake Nokomis</li><li>Lake of the Isles</li><li>Mississippi River</li><li>Powderhorn Lake</li></ul> |
| Aquatic Life (excessive nutrients) | <ul><li>Brownie Lake</li><li>Lake Hiawatha</li><li>Lake Nokomis</li><li>Mississippi River</li><li>Powderhorn Lake</li></ul> |
| Aquatic Life (low oxygen and/or low microorganism count) | <ul><li>Bassett Creek</li><li>Minnehaha Creek</li><li>Shingle Creek</li></ul> |
| Aquatic Life (excessive chlorides) | <ul><li>Bassett Creek</li><li>Brownie Lake</li><li>Diamond Lake</li><li>Loring Lake</li><li>Powderhorn Lake</li><li>Shingle Creek</li><li>Spring Lake</li></ul> |
| Aquatic Recreation (excessive bacteria) | <ul><li>Bassett Creek</li><li>Minnehaha Creek</li><li>Mississippi River</li><li>Shingle Creek</li></ul> |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 569 -->
Table 3.52 (page 3-94) describes the multiple activities that the City has established that are aimed at improving the water quality of all waterbodies in the City, including the above-listed impaired waters. Generally, these activities include installation and proper maintenance of structural stormwater management practices (ponds, green infrastructure, etc.), proper management of streets (street cleaning and winter salt management), stormwater management requirements for new developments, erosion and sediment control for public and private construction activities, and public education. Detailed information on these activities are contained in Section 4 and Section 5.

# Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment

Section 4 provides detailed information on the sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage infrastructure that work together to protect the City’s water resources, including:

* Sanitary sewer inventory (age, materials, pipe, tunnels, interceptors, manholes, pump stations, and regulators).
* Stormwater drainage inventory (age, pipe, tunnels, manholes, catch basins, detention facilities, water quality controls, pump stati outfalls).
* Descriptions of public versus private systems.
* Sanitary sewer service area, capacity, and design standards.
* Stormwater drainage areas, capacity, and design standards.
* Flow projections for sanitary sewers.
* Ongoing improvement activities.
* Operation and maintenance activities.
* Condition assessments.
* Coordination with government agencies.
* Responsibilities for infrastructure management.

**Stone Arch Bridge**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

**Central Library Green Roof**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 570 -->
## Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs

Section 5 recognizes that the public has responsibilities related to water resource management. Section 5 describes the following regulations and programs that require or incorporate public involvement:

* The City and MPRB ordinances that influence water resource management.
* The City’s water resource regulatory programs, including stormwater management requirements for new developments, erosion and sediment control practice requirements for public and private construction activities, inflow/infiltration compliance requirements for sanitary sewers on private properties, and illicit discharge compliance requirements for stormwater drainage systems on private properties.
* Inventory of water resource public education efforts by the City, MPRB, and others.
* Administrative responsibilities for the regulatory programs inventoried in Section 5.

**Shingle Creek at Lyndale Avenue North**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: CDM Smith*

## Section 6 – Planning and Implementation

Section 6 describes the City’s financial and planning processes used to manage water resource management programs. Information includes the City’s revenue sources, expenditure framework, and the lifecycle management process used to identify and implement changes in water resource activities. Capital Improvement Projects that have been formally adopted by the Minneapolis City Council as part of the annual budget are identified. The prioritization approach implemented when there are multiple demands on the City’s finite financial resources is also presented.

In 2018, the City budgeted $91.1 million for sanitary sewer and stormwater management expenses, of which $41.3 million is paid to the Metropolitan Council for sewage treatment. The remainder of the fund is used for capital improvement expenses, maintenance, street sweeping, and management/administration.

*In 2018, the City budgeted $59.4 million for sanitary sewer expenses and $31.7 million for stormwater management expenses.*

This WRMP sets a framework for the additional efforts necessary through 2028 to ensure continued management and improvement of the City’s valuable water resources.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 571 -->
Ongoing programs include:

* Updated to official controls, including a 2018 update of City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 54, Stormwater Management and an update to the City Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Guide for development and redevelopment.

* Activities required in the City's NPDES Integrated Permit, including public education, illicit discharge detection and elimination, spill response program, City facility inspections, staff training, erosion and sediment control for City construction projects, street cleaning, winter snow and ice control, stormwater management practice maintenance, City good housekeeping, pilot projects, and ongoing assessments of the condition and capacity of the sanitary sewers and stormwater drainage systems. These programs are budgeted to be $12 million to $13.5 million per year.

* Capital improvement projects in the general categories of:

    * **Sanitary Sewer and Tunnel Rehabilitation** to maintain structural integrity of sanitary system.

    * **Implementation of EPA Stormwater Regulations**, which provide structural stormwater management improvements to further reduce pollutant discharge to waterbodies.

    * **Combined Sewer Overflow Improvements** involving storm drain construction as needed to eliminate stormwater connections to the sanitary sewers.

    * **Storm Drain and Tunnel Rehabilitation** to maintain structural integrity of the stormwater system and improve system capacity.

    * **Flood Mitigation with Alternative Stormwater Management Improvements** as needed to eliminate ongoing flooding through installation of structural stormwater management practices such as stormwater ponds, infiltration practices, and/or green infrastructure such as raingardens.

The projected cost for these capital improvements ranges from $30 million to $80 million per year, to be funded through City budgets, partnerships with other public agencies, state funding, and grants. A year-by-year breakdown of projects and costs is provided in Appendix K.

## Annual Reporting

*Detailed, up-to-date information on the City's Stormwater Management Plan is found in annual reports prepared by the City and the MPRB.*

This WRMP is a planning level document that is intended to inventory the City's water resources and its water resource management infrastructure. It is also intended to outline solutions to identified issues, as well as to present an implementation plan that will serve to maintain and improve the water quality and infrastructure as necessary over the 10-year planning period of this WRMP. Additional detail on the stormwater management activities is available in the City's Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), which is updated on a 5-year cycle, with the most current

<!-- page 572 -->
update planned for release in early 2019. Annual report, described in more detail in Section 1, serve to communicate specific accomplishments over the previous calendar year. The Minneapolis Water Resources Annual Report is released for public review and is the subject of an annual public hearing conducted by the Minneapolis City Council. City staff is available to meet with watershed organizations, other public agencies, and the public as requested to discuss the previous year’s annual reports, proposed changes to this WRMP or to the SWMP, and upcoming capital improvement projects under development by the City.

## How to Use this Report

The purpose of this WRMP is to provide a comprehensive description of the City’s water resource management programs and projects at the time this report was published. Water resource management in the City continues to evolve as problems are identified or new regulations are adopted. Because of this ever-changing character of water resource management in the City, this plan has been developed with the philosophy to reference, and not duplicate, information that is available online.

Readers are encouraged to go to the original source for the most current and accurate information available. Links are provided to assist the reader in finding appropriate website(s) containing the information referenced in this WRMP. The City will review the links presented in the References and Links section on a routine basis to provide access to the most current information.

*Specific information, especially information that is subject to frequent change, is contained either in an appendix to this plan, in one of the City's NPDES Annual Reports, or is identified through referral or link to another organization.*

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 573 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 574 -->
# Section 1 – History and Overview of Minneapolis Water Resources

The Minneapolis Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) is a document that provides background and direction that the City of Minneapolis (City) utilizes to proactively manage its water resources. This document updates the 2006 Minneapolis Local Surface Water Management Plan and the 2008 Minneapolis Sanitary Sewer Plan. The purpose of this 2018 update is to describe the City’s integrated approach for management of issues and activities related to the City’s surface waters, stormwater drainage and treatment system, and sanitary collection system. The goal of this integrated approach is to ensure that the improvements in one system do not negatively affect operations in other systems, to ensure protection of the important water resources that define Minneapolis.

## History

The City has long been defined by its water resources. The Mississippi River, in its current location, has existed since the last ice age about 12,000 years ago. Before the middle of the 19th Century, the Dakota tribe occupied the area now known as Minneapolis, with the Ojibwe as the other dominant Native American tribe in the area. Figure 1.1 shows the Dakota and Ojibwe place names for many of the significant water resources within the City.[^p574-1]

The town of Minneapolis was incorporated in 1856 and the first town council organized in 1858. Saint Anthony and Minneapolis merged in 1872 under the name of Minneapolis. On February 27, 1883, the Legislature acted on a request from the citizens of Minneapolis and authorized an independent Board of Park Commissioners.

**Powderhorn Park, 1905**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board*

Nearly all of the City’s lakes were physically altered in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Lakes were dredged, shorelines filled, islands lost and rebuilt, springs buried, creeks rerouted, ponds built, and wetlands drained. This was done mainly for functional and aesthetic purposes. The most significant alterations include:

* Bassett Creek, near downtown, was enclosed in the mid-1880s into an underground culvert to create a railroad yard.

***

[^p574-1]: Source: Two Pines Resource Group. *Native American Context Statement and Reconnaissance Level Survey Supplement.* Prepared for the City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development. July 2016.

<!-- page 575 -->
### Figure 1.1 – Dakota and Ojibwe Place Names for Significant Water Resources in the City of Minneapolis

<<FIGURE>>

City of Minneapolis
# Native American Names for Water Bodies in the City of Bde Óte

(D) = Dakota Name
(O) = Ojibwe Name
☐ Minneapolis Boundary
■ Water Bodies

<!-- page 576 -->
* Lake Harriet was extensively dredged and filled on the northwest portion to eliminate marshland and create a more beautiful landscape in the early 1900s. The northern edge of the lake was drained and turned into a meadow for picnics.

* The entire shoreline of Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska received some degree of dredge fill to support parkway construction, which occurred regularly between 1910 and 1925.

* Lake of the Isles was dredged along the north arm to create a uniform depth between 1889 and 1893 and was filled along the swampy east shore to create 4.5 acres of shoreland. These actions eliminated two islands from the lake.

* Channels were created between Brownie Lake, Cedar Lake, Lake of the Isles, and Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska to connect these into a continuous waterbody. A smaller channel was dredged between Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet.

Between 1856 and 1927, the area of Minneapolis grew to nearly 59 square miles, as shown in Figure 1.2. In 1856, the City occupied 24 square miles; in 1889, the boundaries expanded to cover 53.5 square miles. The last major annexation of land occurred in 1927, which resulted in the total land area of 58.7 square miles. The population of the City exceeded 300,000 by 1910. To accommodate this rapid growth, the City’s infrastructure grew by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years of the 19^th Century. In 1889 and 1890, the City constructed 145 miles of sidewalk, and by 1908, there were approximately 125 miles of paved streets.

<!-- page 577 -->
Figure 1.2 – Minneapolis Growth

<<FIGURE>>

| Population | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 1880 | 46,887 |
| 1890 | 164,738 |
| 1900 | 202,718 |
| 1920 | 380,582 |
| 1940 | 492,370 |
| 1950 | 521,718 |
| 1960 | 482,872 |
| 1970 | 434,400 |
| 1980 | 370,951 |
| 1990 | 368,284 |
| 2000 | 382,618 |
| 2010 | 382,578 |
| 2016 (est.) | 413,651 |

City of Minneapolis
# Progressive Growth of Minneapolis

<!-- page 578 -->
Work began on the City's sewer system in 1870 with the construction of a 40-inch diameter brick sewer on Washington Avenue South, as shown in Figure 1.3. By the early 1900s, there were 225 miles of City sewers.

#### Figure 1.3 – Washington Avenue Sanitary Sewer System, 1870

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

#### Early Sewer Construction in Minneapolis, 1890

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minnesota Historical Society*

Through the 1920s, most of the City was served by a combined sewer system that collected sanitary sewage plus runoff from streets and properties. This combined drainage was conveyed and discharged directly to the Mississippi River without any treatment. Combined sewers were thought to be a major public health advancement at the time of construction as they effectively washed human and animal waste to the river. It is now recognized that combined sewers simply relocated health and environmental problems from the streets to the Mississippi River.

In the early 1930s, the Legislature created the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sewer Board[^p578-2] to improve the welfare of the Minneapolis and St. Paul areas through installation of a centralized system of sewage treatment and disposal. The Board constructed a treatment facility in St. Paul, plus a system of interceptor sewers in Minneapolis (and elsewhere) to collect sanitary sewage and convey it to the treatment facility. Overflow regulators were installed to handle excess flows that exceeded the capacity of the interceptors, typically a result of large rain events. These overflow regulators directed the excess flows directly into the Mississippi River. At that time, there was little effort to separate the stormwater

***

[^p578-2]: Historical records of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Sewer Board are available at the Minnesota Historical Society (http://www2.mnhs.org/library/findaids/gr00275.xml)

<!-- page 579 -->
from the combined sewers; however, from the 1930s forward, as the City continued to develop, new areas were served with separate sanitary and storm drainage systems.

The Metropolitan Council (formerly the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission) took responsibility for the interceptors and regulators in the mid-1960s. In 1960, the City banned rainwater drainage to the sanitary sewer (City Code 1960, As Amend., § 614.010) and all new sewers constructed after 1960 were dedicated to either sanitary or storm flows.

During the 1960s, the movement to separate the combined sanitary and stormwater systems gained momentum when the City began a 30-year program of residential street reconstruction. The City aimed to coordinate storm drain construction with the street reconstruction project which would separate the street runoff from the sanitary sewers. In the late-1970s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minneapolis Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) worked with the City to accelerate the separation project schedule.

Analyses conducted in the 1970s and 1980s determined that adequate capacity existed in the sanitary sewers to allow private source of inflow, such as roof rain leaders and foundation drains, to remain connected to the sanitary system. By the early-2000s, however, the capacity for private source of inflow was no longer adequate. For this reason, a 2003 ordinance was enacted to require disconnection of rain leaders and other connections that delivered stormwater into the sanitary system. Currently, the City works to reduce or eliminate the sources of non-sewage that flows into the sanitary sewers, termed inflow (water that makes its way into the sewers via direct connections) and infiltration (seepage through cracks and joints). This continued reduction of inflow/infiltration (I/I) has nearly eliminated occurrence of combined sewer overflows (CSOs), reduced overall treatment costs paid by the City to the Metropolitan Council, and has provided additional capacity in the regional conveyance and treatment. Additional information on the City of Minneapolis’ I/I program in contained in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment and Section 5 – Private Systems and Regulatory Controls.

**Figure 1.4 – History of Minneapolis Sewer Separation**

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 580 -->
A graphic of how the City’s sewer system has been separated over time is shown in Figure 1.4. As shown, sewer separation has been largely achieved in the City. Although small pockets of combined and partially separate sewers remain, there has been no CSO to the Mississippi River related to wet weather since 2010.

## Current Trends in Minneapolis Water Resources Management

The City is defined by its lakes, creeks, and the Mississippi River. To protect and care for these valued resources, the City has established comprehensive programs and policies. The City must comply with federal and state regulatory mandates, and as an older, fully developed City, contends with the challenges of aging infrastructure. Management of sanitary sewers, storm drains, and surface waters as separate resources can lead to capacity and financial conflicts. For this reason, the City now manages the sanitary collection, stormwater drainage, and surface water systems as integrated systems. With this WRMP, the City has integrated activities that affect water resources by incorporation of the (previously titled) Minneapolis Sewer Plan into this WRMP. Through this integration, the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the sanitary collection system and stormwater treatment and drainage system work together to drive improvements in the quality of the water resources of the City.

In the future, the City anticipates the need to balance multiple important water resource issues and concerns. One of these is aging infrastructure, where additional resources will be required to maintain the condition and capacity of the infrastructure as the system continues to age. Another important concern is the regulatory mandates to manage stormwater runoff quality and quantity associated with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs (see Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment), where achievement of progress toward Waste Load Allocations will require resources to focus on stormwater runoff pollutant reduction. The potential for more frequent or more intense wet weather events due to climate change is another concern that necessitates infrastructure investment, such as management of flooding. In anticipation of these numerous demands with limited resources, the City will seek to accomplish multiple water resource goals within their infrastructure improvement projects. For example, private inflow sources are identified for disconnection from the sanitary sewers as part of street reconstruction projects, and water quality improvements are included when flood mitigation projects are carried out. The City expects that this strategy will deliver projects that maintain the condition and capacity of the systems that both improves water quality and provides cost-effective solutions to multiple water resource challenges.

**Sanitary Sewer Cleaning**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 581 -->
The City is also committed to consideration of emerging techniques and technologies, as well as the anticipated weather changes related to climate change. Preservation of natural resources, disconnection of impervious surface, reduction in impervious area, and continued implementation of cost-effective Stormwater Management Practices (SMPs) are all activities that will address the overall volume, rate, and quality of stormwater that is discharged to surface waters. This will benefit both the City’s infrastructure and ultimately the water as follows:

*   Reduced velocity of flow in local streams.
*   Reduced pollutant loads to surface waters.
*   Increased recharge of groundwater.
*   Reduced frequency, severity, and duration of localized street/intersection floods.
*   Improved capacity of stormwater drainage system.

An important water resource tool to manage the sanitary collection system will continue to be reductions in I/I. The overall benefit of this program is the improvement in water quality of the Mississippi River, by eliminating sewer overflows and cost savings for excess treatment at the plant and expansion of regional facilities.

**Construction of Underground Stormwater Treatment**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

# Categorization of Minneapolis Water Resources Systems

The City categorizes its water resource systems into three major groups: surface waters, public infrastructure, and private systems. The public infrastructure is further divided into the sub-categories of sanitary sewer system, stormwater drainage system, and public ditches. Details of each of these systems are further described in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment, and Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment. Private systems and responsibilities are described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

<!-- page 582 -->
## Surface Waters

Surface waters include all waters of the state, termed Public Waters, that are within the Minneapolis city boundaries. Public Waters are defined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Although a segment of Shingle Creek through the City is a County Ditch, and regulated by Minnesota Drainage Law, it is managed as surface water for purposes of this WRMP.

All surface waters have been classified by the MPCA by its beneficial use, the highest class being for domestic water consumption (Class 1). Each class is assigned a water quality standard, which is the basis for preservation and restoration of the quality of the waters of the State.

## Infrastructure

### Sanitary Sewer System

For the purposes of this WRMP, components of the sanitary system include pipes, manholes, control structures, and lift stations used primarily for the conveyance of sewage to the sanitary interceptors owned by the Metropolitan Council.

### Storm Drainage System

The storm drain system includes all physical components to both convey and manage the stormwater runoff. Structural conveyance components include street gutters, catch basins, manholes, pipes, tunnels, and pumps; structural SMPs include grit chambers, detention ponds, infiltration devices, filtration devices, underground storage, and outfalls.

### Public Ditches

Minnesota Statute 103E, Drainage Law (commonly called the Minnesota Ditch Law) allows for a water management authority to construct and maintain public ditch systems. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) is the state agency responsible for the oversight of Chapter 103E and

**Minnehaha Falls**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

**Cedar Meadows Stormwater Pond**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 583 -->
has published the Minnesota Drainage Manual (2016) and Understanding Minnesota Public Drainage Law (2002) to provide guidance for management of the public ditch system.

These public ditches are integral to the Minneapolis storm drainage system and are owned and managed by Hennepin County and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).

* Shingle Creek between Xerxes Avenue in Brooklyn Park and 44^th Avenue North in Minneapolis is legally Hennepin County Ditch No. 13 and is the responsibility of Hennepin County under the Minnesota Ditch Law. For the purpose of this WRMP, this segment of Shingle Creek is managed as a surface water.

* At the request of the MCWD, Hennepin County transferred the administrative, operation, and maintenance responsibilities for County Ditches No. 14, No. 17, and No. 29 to the MCWD in 1971 and 1972. Each of these ditches discharge to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska and, within the municipal limits of the City, has been enclosed into a storm drain.

### Private Sanitary Sewers and Treatment Systems

Generally, the proper operation and maintenance of private sanitary and stormwater systems is the responsibility of the private property owner. In Minneapolis, this private ownership includes the segment of the private connection that is within the public right-of-way, as well as the connection to the City-owned sanitary sewer. Activities detailed in this report include programs the City has implemented related to private infrastructure, as necessary to ensure compliance with City ordinances.

Private sanitary sewers that connect to the City’s sanitary collection system are required to obtain a Sewer Connection Permit from the City’s Utility Connections Office of the Public Works Department. Private wastewater treatment facilities are subject to additional requirements set by the MPCA and Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council also requires certain industries that discharge to the sanitary sewers obtain an Industrial Permit, of which there are 165 issued to industries within the City. The City does not maintain a separate list of industrial permits that are managed by these agencies. A data search of the MPCA records found 35 active private industrial permitted wastewater systems in the City as of May 2016.

Private Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS), also called septic systems, are prohibited by Minneapolis Code of Ordinance Chapter 101 where public sewers are available. Chapter 511 prohibits the construction of such systems for new buildings. The City transferred authority to Hennepin County to regulate ISTS locations within the City. Hennepin County Environmental Health provides septic inspection and enforcement programs under the authority of Hennepin County Ordinance No. 19. This ordinance adopts Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 governs ISTS and went into effect on January 1, 2000. Hennepin County has reported that there is one active ISTS within the City of Minneapolis.

#### Private Stormwater Drains and Industrial Stormwater

New private stormwater drains that connect to the City’s stormwater system are required to obtain a Utility Connection Permit from the City. Private stormwater outfalls that discharge directly to a surface water are also subject to the City’s Utility Connection Permit.

<!-- page 584 -->
Owners of private stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required to register the BMP with the City's Public Works Department.

The MPCA requires certain industrial facilities to obtain an Industrial Stormwater General Permit. MPCA records list 160 permits issued to Minneapolis industrial facilities as of May 1, 2016. The City does not maintain an active list of private and/or industrial stormwater permits that are managed by other public agencies.

# Minneapolis Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP)

## Purpose of Water Resource Management Plan

Successful management of the City's water resources requires a comprehensive program that respects the needs of the water resource while concurrently meeting regulatory requirements and achieving sound fiscal management. The City has prepared this WRMP as a comprehensive planning document that balances these demands as the City conserves, protects, and manages its water resources. This WRMP:

*   Compiles, summarizes, and references efforts of agencies, organizations, and departments of the City and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB). Links are provided to allow users of this report to access specific information that is summarized, but not fully covered, in this WRMP.
*   Reviews the current state of the City's water resources in the context of sanitary sewer system and stormwater drainage system goals and policies, ordinances, operations and maintenance practices, flood mitigation, and other water resource goals.
*   Establishes reasonable and affordable goals that support achievable results within the established regulatory and management structure.
*   Lays out the City's approach to assessment, planning, and implementation that is used in the event that a new project or program is required to achieve water resource management goals.

### Relationship to Comprehensive Plan

This WRMP is a chapter of the 2018 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan and has been reviewed by the Metropolitan Council to ensure compliance with their Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.

### Relationship to Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program

The Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) is a federally required document that has been prepared in compliance with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit which is overseen by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). This WRMP is a planning document that must comply with requirements established by the State of Minnesota and overseen by the Minnesota BWSR and local watershed management organizations. These two documents have the overall goal of improvement of the quality of water resources but have different implementation approaches. The SWMP has a focus on specific SMPs as required in the City's NPDES stormwater permit. The content of the SWMP is not duplicated in this WRMP but is referenced wherever relevant. This WRMP has a broader view that includes the additional water management

<!-- page 585 -->
activities such as management of the surface waters, monitoring, relationship with the City’s goals, and management of the City’s sanitary collection system, among other planning level activities.

### Relationship to Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Lands and Water Resources
The MPRB owns all parkland in Minneapolis, as well as large parks outside the municipal boundaries of the City. As detailed in Section 3, most of the lakes and streams are within the boundaries of MPRB lands, resulting in the MPRB being a property owner of nearly all shoreline in the City. As a separate agency with an independent elected board, the MPRB has full zoning authority for its land and adopts ordinances that govern operations, land use, and waterbody use. The MPRB is fully responsible for maintenance of their lands, including shorelines, without oversight by the City.

As a separate agency, the MPRB is not governed by this WRMP, but is governed by the NPDES Integrated Permit, which was issued jointly to the City and the MPRB. As co-permittees, the City and the MPRB strive to work closely together to accomplish the water quality goals contained in the NPDES permit, as well as those goals described in this document. Cooperative activities include ongoing collaboration on capital improvement projects, public education, monitoring, and other program activities. As part of this ongoing collaboration, MPRB staff contributed to the development of this WRMP.

## Information Contained in Water Resource Management Plan
**Heritage Park Stormwater Channel**

Water resources management in the City continues to grow. Monitoring information is updated annually, improvements are constructed in the infrastructure, and watershed-based programs are implemented. Because of this ever-changing character of water resources management in the City, this plan has been developed with the philosophy to reference, and not duplicate, information developed by others. As a result, specific information, especially information that is subject to frequent change, is either contained in an appendix to this plan, is contained in one of the City’s Annual Reports, or is referenced to another organization.

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

Readers are encouraged to go to the original source for the most current and accurate information available.

In 2015, the Minnesota BWSR adopted a change to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8410 that revised the required information that must be contained in watershed management plans and local water plans. With respect to local water plans and this WRMP, the new requirements are listed in Table 1.1. A more detailed cross-reference between the Minneapolis WRMP and Local Plan requirements is contained in Appendix A.

<!-- page 586 -->
#### Table 1.1 – 2016 Local Plan Requirements

| 8410.0160 PLAN STRUCTURE |
| :--- |
| Subpart 1. Requirement<br>Each local water plan must, at a minimum, meet the requirements for local water management plans in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.235, and this part, except as provided by the watershed management organization plan under part 8410.0105, subpart 9. |
| Subpart 2. Local Comprehensive Plan<br>Each local government unit must include the local water plan as a chapter of its local comprehensive plan. All local comprehensive plans must be consistent with local water plans adopted under this part. |
| Subpart 3. Plan Contents<br>Each local water plan, in the degree of detail required in the organization plan, must contain the following:<br>A. An executive summary that summarizes the highlights of the local water plan;<br>B. Appropriate water resource management-related agreements that have been entered into by the local community must be summarized, including joint powers agreements related to water management that the local government unit may be party to between itself and watershed management organizations, adjoining communities, or private parties;<br>C. The existing and proposed physical environment and land use must be described. Drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of storm water runoff must be defined. Data may be incorporated by reference as allowed under parts 8410.0060 and 8410.0105, subpart 9, or the local comprehensive plan;<br>D. An assessment of existing or potential water resource-related problems must be summarized. The problem assessment must be completed for only those areas within the corporate limits of the local government unit and similar to the process under part 8410.0045, subpart 7;<br>E. A local implementation program through the year the local water plan extends must describe nonstructural, programmatic, and structural solutions to problems identified in item D. The program must not jeopardize achievement of the goals of an organization’s plan. The implementation components must be prioritized consistent with the principles of part 8410.0045, subpart 1, item A. Local water plans must prioritize the implementation components of an organization plan consistent with the organization priorities set forth under part 8410.0105, only for implementation components that must be facilitated by the local government unit. Local official controls must be enacted within six months of approval of the local water plan by the organization.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*(1) include areas and elevations for storm water storage adequate to meet performance standards or official controls established in the organization plan;*<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*(2) define water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards or official controls in the organization plan and identify regulated areas;*<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*(3) clearly define the responsibilities of the local government unit from that of an organization for carrying out the implementation components;*<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*(4) describe official controls and any changes to official controls relative to requirements of the organization’s plan;*<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*(5) include a table that briefly describes each component of the implementation program and clearly details the schedule, estimated cost, and funding sources for each component including annual budget tools; and*<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*(6) include a table for a capital improvement program that sets forth, by year, details of each contemplated capital improvement that includes the schedule, estimated cost, and funding source.* |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 587 -->
| 8410.0160 PLAN STRUCTURE |
| :--- |
| Subpart 4. Amended procedures. |
| A section entitled "Amendments to Plan" must establish the process by which amendments may be made. The amendment procedure shall conform with the plan amendment procedures in the organization plans that affect the community. |
| Subpart. 5. Submittal and review. |
| After consideration and before adoption, the local water plan or local water plan amendments shall be submitted for review according to Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.235. |
| Subpart 6. Adoption and implementation. |
| Each local water plan shall be adopted not more than two years before the local comprehensive plan is due. Extensions of local comprehensive plan due dates do not alter the local water plan schedule. Each local water plan must be adopted and implemented in accordance with the time requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.235, subdivision 4. Each local government unit must notify watershed management organizations with jurisdiction over area subject to the local water plan and the Metropolitan Council within 30 days of adoption and implementation of the local water plan or local water plan amendment, including the adoption of necessary official controls. |

# Water Resource Management Plan Management and Adoption

The City is committed to management of its water resources in the most efficient and up-to-date manner feasible. The goal of this plan is to be in compliance with requirements of Minnesota Rule 8410.0160, which governs local water plans, including this WRMP. Once this WRMP is final, the focus will be to implement the recommended programs and to continue to update practices and policies as mandates develop or as new technologies emerge. This approach will allow the flexibility necessary to respond to the layers of regulations that affect the City. This WRMP will be used as the guide to ensure that new practices meet the stated goals and guiding principles. Approval, adoption, and revisions to this plan will follow the format detailed in the following subsections.

**Fishing on Lake Harriet**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

### City Council Consideration

The City Council has accepted this draft document for review concurrent with submittal to the Metropolitan Council and watershed management organizations, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235. Prior to City Council acceptance and adoption, the MPRB staff have had an opportunity to review the draft document for consistency with MPRB activities.

<!-- page 588 -->
### Metropolitan Council, Watershed District, and Watershed Management Organization Review

After City Council acceptance of the draft document, City staff submit the WRMP for agency review, in accordance with procedures set in Minnesota Statute 103B.235 and Minnesota Rule Chapter 8410.0160. Comments from reviewing agencies will be considered for inclusion in the revised WRMP.

### Public Review

Public input will be sought through formal and informal communications. City of Minneapolis staff will make the draft document available for review and will solicit comments. Public comments will be considered for inclusion in the revised WRMP. The final revised WRMP will be presented to the Transportation and Public Works Committee of the Minneapolis City Council prior to adoption by the full City Council.

### City Adoption

Final adoption will be considered by the Minneapolis City Council and the Mayor after approval by the watershed management organizations, approval by the Metropolitan Council, public review, and a public hearing.

### Amendment Procedures

On occasion, amendments to the WRMP may be necessary. The process for a major amendment to this WRMP will follow the steps set for adoption of the report. City staff will determine if an amendment is necessary, either based on a formal written request or based on changes to water resources management goals and objectives. The request shall outline the need for the amendment, as well as additional materials that the City will need to consider before a decision is made.

Minor changes to the WRMP do not require watershed management organization or City Council approval and can be made by City staff but must be supplied to the City Council before being submitted to the watershed organizations for their information. The City considers minor changes to be those that do not modify the goals, policies, or commitments identified in this WRMP. The most significant example of a minor change would be updating the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and implementation program to align with City Council annual adoption of budgets that fund projects and programs.

Section 4 of this WRMP identifies the need to complete analysis of the runoff volumes and flow rates at the 419 stormwater outfalls owned by the City. The results of this analysis will be appended to this WRMP as a minor plan amendment when the analysis is complete.

## Annual Reports

Through 2017, three annual reports were published each year that provide the most up-to-date information on water resource related actions and accomplishments. These reports are:

* The Combined Sewer Bypasses and Overflows annual report is prepared by Metropolitan Council with information contributed by the City of Minneapolis. This report includes information on inspection activities, historic precipitation versus overflows, status of rain leader disconnections, status of catch basin disconnections, and planned activities for the future year.

<!-- page 589 -->
*   The NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Phase I Annual Report reports on stormwater related activities governed by the City’s NPDES permit. The report summarizes the accomplishments of the previous year in the general categories shown in Table 1.2.

### Table 1.2 – NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Phase I Annual Report Contents

| Category | Activities |
| :--- | :--- |
| Stormwater Drainage System Maintenance | ▪ Number of catch basins repaired<br>▪ Miles of storm drains cleaned<br>▪ Miles of storm drains televised and assessed<br>▪ Feet of storm tunnel repaired<br>▪ Number of ponds and devices maintained<br>▪ Number of grit chambers inspected<br>▪ Number of grit chambers cleaned<br>▪ Number of outfalls inspected<br>▪ Number of pump stations monitored, maintained, and rehabilitated<br>▪ Volume of sediment removed and disposed from storm drains, ponds, and structural controls |
| Erosion and Sediment Control/Inspection | ▪ Number of erosion and sediment control cases managed<br>▪ Total number of inspections conducted<br>▪ Number of enforcement actions<br>▪ Number of citations for non-compliance issued |
| Site Plan Development | ▪ Number of site plans reviewed<br>▪ Number of site plans approved<br>▪ Number of new BMPs approved<br>▪ Total acres and total impervious acres of property with new stormwater management practices |
| Public Works Street Maintenance | ▪ Tons of salt applied during winter street maintenance period<br>▪ Tons of sand applied during winter street maintenance period<br>▪ Tons of material collected during spring and summer sweeping operations<br>▪ Tons of leaves collected for composting during fall sweeping operations<br>▪ Number of staff attending hazardous materials testing<br>▪ Number of staff attending salt management training |
| MPRB Snow and Ice Management | ▪ Number of MPRB staff that hold MPCA Road Salt Applicators Training Certificate<br>▪ Amount of materials recovered as a percentage of materials applied<br>▪ Amount of salt and sand applied relative to total snowfall |
| Flood Mitigation | ▪ Percentage of City-wide hydrologic/hydraulic models complete to-date |
| Vegetation Management – Pesticides and Fertilizer Control | ▪ Number of MPRB staff who hold pesticide applicator licenses through the Minneapolis Department of Agriculture (MDA)<br>▪ Number of MPRB staff receiving training and certificates on chloride application<br>▪ Vegetation management at stormwater management sites, including pest management and prescribed vegetation burns |
| Illicit Discharge and Improper Disposal | ▪ Number of emergency response requests and response time<br>▪ Number of days of outfall sampling and visual inspections<br>▪ Number of spill incidents where contaminant boom was utilized<br>▪ Training on deployment of spill response/containment boom on the Mississippi River<br>▪ Number of spill response overview sessions for staff |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 590 -->
| Category | Activities |
| :--- | :--- |
| Illicit Discharge and Improper Disposal (continued) | <ul><li>Number of water and land pollution complaints investigated</li><li>Description of brownfield maintenance and monitoring</li><li>Number of limited duration sanitary sewer and stormwater discharge permits approved</li><li>Number of temporary water discharge permits approved</li><li>Number of storage tank permits approved</li><li>Number of hazardous materials facilities inspected</li><li>Number of emergency response plans for hazardous materials facilities reviewed</li></ul> |
| New Sanitary Sewers and Stormwater Drains Construction | <ul><li>New storm drain construction projects to eliminate CSO connections to sanitary sewer</li><li>Total drainage acres removed from sanitary sewer</li><li>Total miles of sanitary sewer installed with cured-in-place liners</li><li>Total number of inflow/infiltration repairs completed on sanitary sewers</li></ul> |
| Public Education | <ul><li>Description of MPRB public education and outreach sessions</li><li>Description of Metro Blooms education workshops conducted</li><li>Number of participants, catch basins stenciled, trash collected, and door hangers distributed through the Catch Basin Stenciling activities</li><li>Number of MPRB parks with water quality education program events</li><li>Number of sites, number of volunteers, and pounds of trash collected at Earth Day Watershed Clean-Up sites</li><li>Listing of public education websites</li></ul> |
| Public Participation | <ul><li>Date and location of annual public hearing on the Stormwater Management Program</li><li>Number of interested parties receiving notice of annual public hearing</li><li>Description of notices sent to neighborhood organizations and government agencies</li><li>Summary of testimony presented at public hearing and written comments received</li></ul> |
| Coordination with Other Government Agencies | <ul><li>Summary of significant activities by watershed organizations, Hennepin County, MPCA, and other agencies</li></ul> |
| Stormwater Monitoring Results and Data Analysis | <ul><li>Lake water quality trends</li><li>Stormwater monitoring sites description, samples collected, parameters tested, and analysis results</li><li>Precipitation events greater than 0.10 inches</li><li>Water quality monitoring completed</li><li>Structural stormwater management sites monitored for pollutant removal effectiveness, including procedures and monitoring results</li></ul> |

*   The MPRB Water Resources Report summarizes monitoring and analysis for surface waters, stormwater runoff, and BMP effectiveness as completed in the previous year.

The NPDES Integrated Stormwater Permit, contained in Appendix B, will impact these annual reports such that the *Combined Sewer Bypasses and Overflows* annual report will be merged into the *NPDES MS4 Phase I* annual report. This change will be effective for the 2018 annual report, which will be published in 2019.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 591 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 592 -->
# Section 2 – Regulatory Requirements, Goals, and Policies

## Regulatory Agencies, Requirements, Goals, and Programs

This Minneapolis Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) is developed to meet the regulatory requirements of Minnesota Statute 103B.235, Minnesota Statute 473.858, Minnesota Statute 473.513, and Minnesota Rule Chapter 8410.0160 (Local Water Management Plans). This WRMP is also designed to meet the local water plan requirements of each watershed organization with jurisdiction in Minneapolis, and the water resource comprehensive plan requirements of the Metropolitan Council. In addition to these comprehensive plan requirements, there are Federal laws and regulations and State statutes and rules that dictate water resource management in the City of Minneapolis (City).

This section describes all applicable regulatory requirements in order to provide detail on the complexity of water resource management. This section also highlights how the City’s goals and objectives serve to meet these regulatory requirements.

### Federal Requirements and Programs

**Clean Water Act**

The 1972 amendment of the 1948 Federal Pollution Control Act, known as the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), governs the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. The CWA gave the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to create federal regulations and permit programs related to Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO), Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), and activities that alter wetlands. In Minnesota, the authority to issue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the authority of the CWA has been delegated to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Wetland permits are issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits for pollutants, an initiative mandated by the EPA, also stem from the EPA’s role as steward of the CWA.

**Loring Park Shoreland**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

Environmental Protection Agency – Clean Water Act

<!-- page 593 -->
### NPDES Programs

Combined sewer systems, once a common construction practice in older cities across the country, are designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in a single pipe. Most of the time, combined sewer systems transport all wastewater to a sewage treatment plant, where it is treated and discharged to a surface water. However, the wastewater volume in a combined sewer system can exceed the capacity of the sanitary sewer system or treatment plant as a result of heavy rainfall or snowmelt. For this reason, combined sewer systems were designed to allow excessive stormwater/wastewater flows to overflow the sanitary sewers and discharge directly to nearby streams, rivers, or other waterbodies. These overflows contain not only stormwater but also untreated human and industrial waste, toxic materials, and debris. Per data collected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2004, there are 746 communities that have combined sewer systems in the United States with a combined total of 9,348 CSO outfalls and an (estimated) discharge of 850 billion gallons of combined untreated wastewater and stormwater being discharged each year.[^p593-1] As described in Section 1 – History and Overview of Minneapolis Water Resources and Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment, the City has worked to eliminate major sources of clear water discharges to the sanitary sewers in an effort to minimize the occurrence of CSO events. To-date, this program has been successful with no measured CSO events since 2010. CSO controls remain in the system to prevent sewage backups into or onto streets and/or into basements during a major precipitation event, and to protect sanitary sewer infrastructure from failures caused by excessive pressure. The EPA continues to regulate CSO systems through the NPDES permit program, which is administered in Minnesota by the MPCA.

**Mississippi River at Saint Anthony Falls**

<<FIGURE>>

Credit: CDM Smith

Stormwater discharges are generated by stormwater and snowmelt runoff from land and impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops. As it flows across the land and impervious surfaces, the runoff often picks up and transports pollutants in quantities that can adversely affect water quality. Most stormwater discharges to rivers, creeks, and lakes are from the storm drains at outfall structures, which are considered point sources and require coverage by an NPDES permit. The primary method to control stormwater discharge is through Stormwater Management Programs (SWMPs) as mandated in NPDES stormwater permits. In 1990, the EPA issued their initial stormwater rules which created stormwater management requirements for municipalities with populations greater than 100,000, certain industrial sites, and active construction sites. The City was designated as a Phase I

[^p593-1]: EPA. *Report to Congress, Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs*. EPA 833-R-04-001. August 2004

<!-- page 594 -->
municipality under these rules which led to the development of the stormwater programs described in this WRMP.

EPA CSO Program
EPA Stormwater Program

### Sanitary Sewer Overflows
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) are occasional, unintentional discharges of raw sewage from municipal, non-combined, sanitary sewers. SSOs occur due to a variety of causes. These causes may include severe weather, clogs, improper system operation and maintenance, or vandalism. The EPA estimates that nationally, there are at least 40,000 SSOs each year. The untreated sewage from these overflows can contaminate public waters, which can result in serious water quality problems. It can also back-up into basements, which causes property damage and threatens public health. There are no documented SSO events within the City between 2014 and 2017.

EPA Sanitary Sewer Overflows

### Section 208 Wastewater Treatment
Section 208 of the CWA requires local governments to identify wastewater treatment needs and to develop comprehensive programs to meet those needs. In the metro area, the 208 planning requirements are the responsibility of the Metropolitan Council.

### Section 404 Wetlands
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States, which includes wetlands. Activities regulated under this program include fill for development, water resources projects, infrastructure development, and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before a dredge or fill material may be discharged into Waters of the United States. Certain farming and forestry activities are exempt from Section 404 regulation.

Section 404 Fact Sheet
USACE Section 404 Permits

**Nokomis Knoll Wetland**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 595 -->
### National Flood Insurance Programs

Since 1974, the City has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to allow property owners to purchase flood insurance. In Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) oversees the implementation of this program. To maintain enrollment in the program, the City must implement ordinances and other local controls that manage land use within designated flood zones. Floodplain overlay maps are maintained by the Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED).

FEMA NFIP Program
Minneapolis Zoning Maps

### USACE Navigation

The full length of the Mississippi River in the City is designated as a Navigational Water under the U.S. River and Harbors Act. Any construction along the shoreline of the Mississippi River, such as improvement of a stormwater outfall, is subject to USACE permit requirements. The USACE uses this permit process to set design requirements to protect the navigation channel of the River.

USACE Navigation Responsibilities

### State Agencies

#### Local Surface Water Management – BWSR

The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) oversees the state statutes and rules that govern local surface water management in the Twin Cities. The powers and duties of this Minnesota state agency with respect to this WRMP include:

*   Coordination of water and soil resources plans among counties, watersheds, and local units of government.
*   Facilitation of communication among state agencies in cooperation with the Environmental Quality Board.
*   Approval of watershed management plans.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources/Water Management
Minnesota Statute 2005 Chapter 103B
Minnesota Rule Chapter 8410

**Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, upstream of lock**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 596 -->
### Protected Waters and Wetlands – MNDNR

An activity within a public water requires a permit from the MNDNR, which includes appropriation of groundwater, construction of stream crossings, construction of storm drain outfalls, wetland alterations, and dredging. The MNDNR’s jurisdiction is generally the area below the Ordinary High-Water level. The MNDNR area hydrologist will coordinate review among other public agencies that also have a role in permit issuance. Public Waters within the City are inventoried in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment.

### Bassett Creek

<<FIGURE>>
*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

Other programs managed by the MNDNR, which affect the City, include the Flood Damage Reduction Grant Program, NFIP, Floodplain Management Program, Shoreland Management Program, Mississippi River Critical Area Program, and the Mississippi River Management Navigation Program.

[Minnesota Water Statutes and Rules – Division of Waters: MNDNR](https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/index.html)
[Floodplain Management Program – Division of Waters: MNDNR](https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/floodplain/index.html)
[Shoreland Management Program – Division of Waters: MNDNR](https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/index.html)
[Water Permits: MNDNR](https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/permits/index.html)

### Wetlands – BWSR

Under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), Local Government Units (LGU) may oversee that wetland management activities are in accordance with specific guidelines established by state agencies. The City is designated as the LGU for wetlands within its corporate boundaries except for those wetlands within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s (MCWD) boundaries, where the MCWD serves as the LGU.

WCA-protected wetlands are not administered under MNDNR’s public waters permit program. The purpose of the WCA is to have LGUs oversee local wetland alteration activities to ensure that there is no net loss of Minnesota’s remaining wetlands. The Minnesota BWSR administers the act statewide, and the MNDNR provides enforcement.

[Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources/Wetland Conservation Act](https://bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/index.html)
[MN Wetland Conservation Act Rules](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8420)
[Wetlands Conservation Program – Division of Waters: MNDNR](https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/wetlands/index.html)
[Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications – MPCA](https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/clean-water-act-section-401-water-quality-certifications)

<!-- page 597 -->
### NPDES Permits – MPCA

The federal NPDES permit program is delegated by the EPA to the MPCA for administration in the State of Minnesota. Through 1990, the majority of NPDES discharge permits were issued to wastewater treatment facilities. The MPCA began to issue NPDES permits for stormwater discharges in the early 1990s after the EPA issued regulations for stormwater discharges. The MPCA created three distinct stormwater permitting programs, which align with the NPDES stormwater regulations. Stormwater permits are issued for construction activities, industrial facilities, and municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (MS4s). The MPCA has issued three General NPDES permits which are renewed on a 5-year cycle: Construction activities for sites one acre and greater; Industrial facilities as defined by EPA rules; and, MS4 stormwater systems owned by public agencies, including municipalities, universities, drainage districts, highway departments, and Indian tribes. Permittees are required to apply to be covered under each permit. The MPCA also issued individual permits to larger facilities and MS4 systems, including the issuance of an individual permit to Minneapolis for stormwater discharges.

In the past, the MPCA had issued two separate NPDES permits to the City of Minneapolis. The permit for municipal stormwater discharges permitted by NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0061018 is held jointly by the City and the MPRB and was last issued in 2011. This permit protected water quality in accordance with Minnesota and United States statutes and rules, which includes Minnesota Statute Chapters 115 and 116, Minnesota Rule Chapters 7001 and 7050, and the CWA. The permit covers the public stormwater discharge points throughout the City operated by the City and the MPRB, which total more than 460. The second NPDES permit that regulated CSOs (NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0046744) was held jointly by the City of Minneapolis and the Metropolitan Council as co-permittees and was last issued in 2000.

As a replacement for these two permits, the co-permittees negotiated an integrated NPDES permit, effective February 16, 2018, that recognizes the historically connected sanitary sewer and stormwater drain infrastructure, recognizes the diminished risk of CSOs and the need to continue to vigilantly direct resources to renewal of aging infrastructure to maintain service levels, and directs the City to continue to work to identify and prioritize work to minimize the risk of CSOs alongside working to meet other CWA goals. This approach is based on the EPA integrated planning approach to assist municipalities on their critical paths to achieve the human health and water quality objectives of the CWA by identifying efficiencies in implementing requirements that arise from distinct wastewater and stormwater programs, including how to best prioritize capital improvements. A cooperative agreement was developed between the City and the Metropolitan Council that will assign the NPDES Integrated Permit responsibilities between the two organizations. The NPDES Integrated Permit is contained in Appendix B.

[Overview – MPCA Stormwater Programs](https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater)
[Stormwater Program for Construction Activity – MPCA](https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/construction-stormwater)
[Stormwater Program for Industrial Activity – MPCA](https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/industrial-stormwater)
[Stormwater Program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System – MPCA](https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/municipal-stormwater-ms4)
[Wastewater Permits – MPCA](https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/wastewater-permit-basics)
[Watershed Based Permits – United States EPA](https://www.epa.gov/npdes/watershed-based-permitting)

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 598 -->
### Water Quality Standards, TMDLs, and WRAPS – MPCA

The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards (WQS) for public waters. These standards, contained in Minnesota Rule Chapter 7050, are designed to protect waters for beneficial public uses such as fishing and swimming. A waterbody is determined to be degraded when pollutants within the waterbody are found to exceed the standards set for the beneficial use class assigned to that waterbody. Beneficial use classification for each City public water is inventoried in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment. Assessments are prepared for the U.S. Congress under Section 305(b) of the CWA to estimate the extent to which Minnesota water bodies meet the goals of the CWA.

#### Storm Drain Construction

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The MPCA is the public agency responsible for assessment of each waterbody on the impaired waters list. Every two years, the MPCA releases a 305(b) Report that includes information about waters of the state: healthy, threatened, and impaired. One element of the 305(b) Report is the 303(d) list which specifies waterbodies that are threatened or impaired. Once the list is approved by the EPA, a strategy needs to be developed that would lead to the attainment of the state WQS contained in Minnesota Rule Chapter 7050. Waterbodies where monitoring has shown impairment are added to the impaired waters list on a two-year cycle. Several surface waterbodies in the City are listed in the state impaired waters 303(d) list. Appendix C lists all of the City’s surface waters on the State’s 2018 305(b) and 303(d) lists.

Each waterbody on the approved impaired waters list will eventually be the subject of a TMDL study. The TMDL process involves four phases:

1. 305(b) assessment and 303(d) list development.
2. Development of TMDL study to determine pollutant load allocations.
3. Implementation plan development and implementation.
4. Effectiveness monitoring.

The MPCA has incorporated compliance with TMDL implementation plan recommendations into the NPDES Integrated Permit, an approach which effectively uses the CWA to mandate that stormwater permittees implement the recommendations of each TMDL study. In the City, this affects the stormwater runoff discharges to the list of waters currently on the Draft 2018 Impaired Waters List contained in Appendix C.

In 2008, the MPCA created a watershed approach for the protection and restoration of water quality called WRAPS (Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy). On a 10-year cycle, the MPCA conducts

<!-- page 599 -->
a detailed investigation of each major watershed in the State. The process involves intensive monitoring, assessment of data, development of restoration, and protection strategies and implementation of recommended solutions. Monitoring information and restoration strategies developed in TMDL studies will be incorporated into each WRAPS plan that is developed by the MPCA. To-date, there has not been any WRAPS plans that have developed strategies for restoration or protection of any water resources in the City.

Minnesota’s Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads – MPCA
Water Quality Standards – MPCA
Minnesota Rule Chapter 7001
Minnesota Rule Chapter 7050

### Groundwater – MNDNR, MPCA, MDA, MDH, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County

**Hand Pump at Cedar Lake**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

Groundwater in Minnesota is managed by multiple agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. The MNDNR issues temporary and permanent groundwater use permits for wells that withdraw either more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, whereas the permit process for discharging groundwater is administered by the City. The MPCA works to clean up groundwater contamination caused by industrial activities. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) focuses on the quality of groundwater with respect to agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) works to ensure that groundwater used for public water supplies meets the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The MDH also manages the requirements for groundwater well installation and sealing. All agencies monitor the quality of the groundwater and publish results on their websites. Although it does not have a regulatory role, the Metropolitan Council studies the availability of groundwater in the Twin Cities region to evaluate the available water supply in supporting regional projected population growth in those areas that utilize groundwater as the source for drinking water.

Groundwater requirements of significance in the City include the MNDNR well permit requirements, the MPCA programs to clean up contaminated groundwater, MDH Special Well and Boring Construction Areas, North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area, MDH Drinking Water Supply Management Areas, and the MDH requirements for well installation and sealing. Areas of the City with special groundwater protection designations, including protection of the groundwater in Water Supply Management Areas for neighboring municipalities, can be found in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment.

<!-- page 600 -->
Hennepin County has not adopted a county groundwater management plan, therefore there are no county requirements to incorporate into this WRMP.

[Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)](https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/)
[Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)](https://www.pca.state.mn.us/)
[Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)](https://www.mda.state.mn.us/)
[Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)](https://www.health.state.mn.us/)
[Metropolitan Council](https://metrocouncil.org/)

### Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS)

**Green Rooftop on Minneapolis Central Library**

<<FIGURE>>
*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

In response to a 2009 statute enacted by the Minnesota Legislature, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) led a multi-year process, termed Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS), that included representation from cities (including Minneapolis), counties, road authorities, watershed organizations, and the development community to establish guidelines that aim to manage stormwater runoff from building sites, roadway projects, and other new construction such that the volume and rate of stormwater runoff will mimic natural conditions. The overall goal is to manage stormwater onsite such that the rate and volume of pre-development stormwater discharge to receiving waters is unchanged.

MIDS was developed by the MPCA as an advisory program, not a specific regulatory program. To assist municipalities and developers with accomplishing MIDS goals, the following tools were developed:

*   Stormwater management practice performance goals for development and redevelopment projects and linear-type projects such as roadways. Included were flexible treatment options for use in locations where achieving MIDS goals is not feasible.
*   Sample ordinances that municipalities can opt to use or modify.
*   A MIDS “calculator” as a simple alternative to water quality modeling software (such as P8 or WinSLAMM) to compute the approximate amount of pollutant removal that could be expected from specific infiltration-type stormwater management practices.

The MIDS efforts also provided specifications, published in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, for designers to follow to ensure proper design, installation, and operation of the infiltration-type stormwater management practices (i.e., green infrastructure, and best management practices (BMPs)).

The City approach on the usage of MIDS guidance documents is further described in Section 5, Minimal Impact Design Standards Flexible Treatment Options.

<!-- page 601 -->
MN MIDS Statute
MPCA MIDS Page

### Buffer Law
In 2015/2016, the Minnesota Legislature enacted new requirements for the management of the riparian zone of streams, lakes, wetlands, and public ditches in Minnesota called the Buffer Law. Once implemented, there will be an average 50-foot wide vegetative buffer along the shoreline of all public waters. Procedural requirements are being established by the Minnesota BWSR, and maps that highlight all public waters that require vegetative buffers have been developed by the MNDNR. The Buffer Law allows an exemption from the Buffer Law requirements for properties within municipalities that are subject to NPDES permit requirements, such as the City of Minneapolis. Guidelines for implementation of this exemption have been developed by BWSR.

MN Buffer Law
BWSR Buffer Program
MNDNR Buffer Maps

### Anti-Degradation
The CWA requires that states adopt rules to manage surface waters in a manner that does not cause further degradation of the water quality of surface waterbodies. In Minnesota, antidegradation rules apply to all waterbodies that are not on the current MPCA Impaired Waters, 303(d) list. This rule proposes that anti-degradation procedures become a condition of municipality’s NPDES wastewater and stormwater permits. An anti-degradation assessment for Minneapolis was conducted by the MPCA in 2010 as part of the reissuance of the NPDES stormwater permit. The conclusion of this assessment was that, since 1988 (the year the Minnesota Anti-Degradation Rule was adopted) there has been no expanded discharge of stormwater. The MPCA determined that the City has reduced, and continues to reduce, stormwater volume and pollutant load discharges to surface waters, as a result of these City actions:

* Since 1988, the City has not created any new or expanded stormwater discharges.
* Since 2000, the City has installed structural SMPs to reduce the discharge of pollutants.
* Since 2000, the City has initiated non-structural stormwater management practices, which are described in the City’s Stormwater Management Program.
* Since the 1990s, developments and redevelopments have been required to comply with water quality improvement requirements set by watershed management organizations and by the City stormwater management ordinance.
* Since the 1980s, the City has aggressively worked to separate the stormwater runoff from the sanitary sewers, which has resulted in zero discharge from CSO sewers since 2010.

The City has continued to implement new SMPs and improvements to existing practices since the MPCA completed the anti-degradation assessment in 2010. The NPDES Integrated Permit requires the City submit information to update this anti-degradation determination during the term of the 5-year permit.

MN Anti-Degradation Rules

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 602 -->
# Regional Water Resource Agencies

## Metropolitan Council

The Metropolitan Council works to ensure that municipal comprehensive plans and local water plans are in conformance with regional plans, are consistent with Metropolitan Council policies, and are compatible with the plans of adjacent municipalities. With respect to wastewater management, the Metropolitan Council is designated as the area-wide waste treatment management agency under Section 208 of the CWA. This responsibility divides into two broad areas: protection of the region’s water resources is accomplished through urban stormwater management and management of the region’s wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities.

**Cedar Lake Beach**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

With respect to wastewater flows, the Metropolitan Council has adopted policies related to management of collection systems to ensure that the regional interceptor conveyance and wastewater facilities have sufficient capacity to manage the expected population changes in the region. The Metropolitan Council also implemented policies that require municipalities to manage the clear water that makes its way into the sanitary collection systems, termed inflow/infiltration (I/I). As owner and operator of the regional sanitary sewer interceptor system, Metropolitan Council was a co-permittee with the City of Minneapolis in the CSO NPDES permit and has worked with the City since the mid-1980s to ensure the near elimination of Minneapolis CSO overflow events.

With respect to water resources, the Metropolitan Council has adopted their Thrive 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. The 2016 adopted version of this Plan is based on a watershed approach that encourages municipalities to develop policies, programs, and projects that integrate all aspects of municipal water resource management: surface water management, stormwater runoff, sanitary collection systems, and water supply. The goal of this approach is to ensure that decisions made with regard to one area of water resource management are beneficial to all areas of water resource management. This 2018 Minneapolis WRMP is partially based on this watershed approach through the integration of surface water management, stormwater runoff management, and sanitary collection and conveyance system management into this Plan. The water supply section of the 2018 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan has been developed as a separate section.

Metropolitan Council is required to review this report to ensure that municipalities manage runoff in a manner that does not affect the regional disposal system and that the water resources content of the WRMP is in accordance with MN Rule Chapter 8410. A specific concern of the Metropolitan Council is

<!-- page 603 -->
that their wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities are not negatively affected by excessive I/I in the sanitary collection system.

Appendix C of the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan lists specific information that municipalities must include in their local water plans. Important issues and information that the City is required to assess in this WRMP include:

* Wastewater System Plan Elements:
    * Description of sanitary collection system.
    * Estimation of current wastewater flows and projections of future wastewater flows.
    * Descriptions of intercommunity interconnections and copies of intercommunity service agreements entered into with an adjoining community after December 31, 2008.
    * Description of the City’s policies and activities to reduce the volume of I/I that migrates into the sanitary collection system.
* Local Surface Water Management Plans:
    * Compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Rule Chapter 8410 and Minnesota Statute 103b.235.

A cross-reference between the Metropolitan Council required plan element and this 2018 Minneapolis WRMP is contained in Appendix A. The specific policies and activities that affect this WRMP involve implementation of I/I mitigation and promotion of onsite stormwater treatment, as described in additional detail in the following subsections.

[Thrive 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan](https://metrocouncil.org)

### Inflow/Infiltration Requirements
The Metropolitan Council has established a policy that states “(t)he Council[^p603-2] will not provide additional capacity within its interceptor system to service excessive inflow and infiltration.”

To accomplish this policy, the Council will establish I/I goals for all communities that discharge wastewater to the regional wastewater system. Communities that have excessive I/I in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the excessive I/I within a reasonable period. Communities that do not meet the goals established by the Metropolitan Council may be subject to a wastewater rate demand charge that is based on the cost of wastewater improvements that would be required to provide capacity beyond the amount designated for that community. The City’s approach to management of I/I is further detailed in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment and Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

### Water Resource Requirements
The Metropolitan Council’s policy on assessment and protection of regional water resources is to continue to monitor the water quality of lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater to evaluate impacts

***

[^p603-2]: Water Resources Policy Plan, page 42

<!-- page 604 -->
and to measure success. To accomplish this policy, the Metropolitan Council monitors the water quality, evaluates long-term water quality trends, maintains a regional database of water data, undertakes technical studies, and conducts outreach. Monitoring conducted in the City by the Metropolitan Council is summarized in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment.

### Hennepin County
Hennepin County’s primary role in water resource management is to serve as the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) under Minnesota Statute 103C. Under this statute, SWCDs are established to manage natural resource programs and to work directly with landowners to establish conservation practices. To accomplish these requirements, Hennepin County has adopted the 2015-2020 Natural Resources Strategic Plan that has objectives to protect groundwater resources and to protect and restore lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. Specific services provided by Hennepin County include:

* Wetland Conservation Act enforcement.
* Conservation easement monitoring.
* Environmental education and outreach.
* Volunteer management.
* Technical assistance to local governments.
* Financial assistance and cost share programs.

Hennepin County does not have a regulatory role with respect to this WRMP.

BWSR SWCD
Hennepin County 2015-2020 Natural Resources Strategic Plan
Wetland Health Evaluation Program

### Watershed Districts and Organizations
Four watershed districts/organizations are represented within the City boundaries. Jurisdictional boundaries of each of the four watershed organizations within the City are shown in Figure 2.1. The primary difference between watershed districts and watershed management organizations relates to how the agency was organized. Watershed districts are created directly by the Minnesota Legislature, while watershed management organizations are created by joint powers agreements among the member municipalities under Minnesota Statute 103B.211. In accordance with the Minnesota Statute 103B.205 Subd. 13, all watershed management entities in the metro area are watershed management organizations regardless of whether they are watershed districts or joint powers entities. Over time, the purpose and function of these organizations have evolved such that there are only small differences between the operational functions of the two types of watershed organizations.

The power and duties of these Minnesota statutory authorities include:

* Approval authority over local water management plans.
* Ability to determine a budget and raise revenue for the purpose of administrative and capital improvement costs.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 605 -->
*   Regulation of land use and development if one or more of the following apply:
    *   The City does not have an approved local water management plan in place; and/or
    *   The City is in violation of its approved local plan.

For purposes of this WRMP, the term watershed organization encompasses both watershed districts and watershed management organizations. Appendix D provides more detailed information on each of the watershed organizations that have jurisdiction within the City.

Each watershed organization has developed a watershed management plan that contains specific goals and policies that guide the overall management within its respective jurisdiction, as contained in Appendix D, and summarized briefly in the following subsections.

<!-- page 606 -->
Figure 2.1 – Watershed Organization Jurisdictional Boundaries in the City of Minneapolis

<<FIGURE>>

City of Minneapolis
# Watershed Organization Jurisdiction Boundaries

<<FIGURE>>

Only the portions of the organizations within Minneapolis are shown.

<!-- page 607 -->
### Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)

The Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission was established in 1969 as a nine municipality joint powers agreement with the specific purpose to manage floods that previously occurred along many segments of the creek. These municipalities include the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, and Saint Louis Park. In 1972, the flood control commission reorganized as the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) and added water quality improvement to its functions. The BCWMC area is the smallest among the four watershed organizations with jurisdiction in the City, which includes the area of the City that drains to the open channel segment of Bassett Creek. Flows that discharge to the Bassett Creek culvert and tunnel system through downtown are under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO).

#### Bassett Creek Watershed Sign

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: CDM Smith*

Each member municipality appoints a commissioner and alternate commissioner to serve on the BCWMC board of commissioners. These commissioners and alternate commissioners work together to establish goals and policies to protect and manage the water resources within its member communities of Crystal, Golden Valley, Minnetonka, Medicine Lake, Minneapolis, New Hope, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, and Saint Louis Park. The most current goals for the BCWMC are contained in their third-generation Watershed Management Plan, which was adopted on September 17, 2015. There are 19 goals that are specific to water quality, habitat, aesthetics, recreation, flood control, stormwater management, shoreland integrity, wetland management, public ditches, education, outreach, and climate change. Each goal is linked to specific policies and rules.

Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)

### Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)

The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is the only organization within the City that was established by the Minnesota Legislature under the Minnesota Watershed District Act. The Board of Managers who govern the MCWD are appointed by the Hennepin County and Carver County Boards of Commissioners. The MCWD hires staff to manage their programs, which include:

* Education.
* Administration and Operations.
* Permits.

<!-- page 608 -->
* Projects.
* Maintenance and Land Management.
* Research and Monitoring.

The MCWD’s most current goals, summarized in Appendix D, are based on their January 11, 2018 Watershed Management Plan. The goals in this plan seek to “conserve the natural resources of the Minnehaha Creek watershed principally through analysis of the causes of harmful impacts on the water resources, public information and education, regulation of land use, regulation of the use of waterbodies and their beds, and capital improvement projects.” A summary of the MCWD’s current rules and 17 watershed management goals is contained in Appendix D.

Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)

### Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO)

The area of Minneapolis that drains to the Mississippi River has been organized by a joint powers agreement into the MWMO. Other members include the MPRB and the municipalities of Columbia Heights, Fridley, Hilltop, Lauderdale, Saint Anthony Village, and Saint Paul. Each member municipality, including the City of Minneapolis, appoints a commissioner and an alternate commissioner to serve on the MWMO governing board.

In 2001, the organization became the first joint powers watershed organization to obtain Special Taxing District designation from the Minnesota Legislature (MS 276.066). This allowed the MWMO to hire full-time staff and implement new programs. Activity areas include:

* Capital Projects.
* Communications and Outreach.
* Monitoring.
* Planning.
* Watershed Assessment.

**Minnehaha Falls in Winter**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

**Mississippi River**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: CDM Smith*

<!-- page 609 -->
The ten water resources management goals established by the MWMO were initially adopted and included in their 2011 Water Resources Management Plan. The stated purpose of the MWMO that resulted in these goals is to “implement measures that realize multiple objectives, respect ecosystem principles and reflect community values.” The specific goals, policies, and implementation priorities of the MWMO are contained in Appendix D.

Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO)

### Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC)

The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) was created by a joint powers agreement in 1984 between the municipalities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale. Each member municipality, including the City of Minneapolis, appoints a commissioner and an alternate commissioner to serve on the SCWMC governing board. The purpose of the SCWMC is to enhance the water quality of the water resources within their watershed through public education, analysis of the causes of harmful impacts, regulation of the use of water bodies, regulation of land use, and capital improvement projects.

#### Shingle Creek

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The July, 2013 Third Generation Watershed Management Plan of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission established 20 goals that are organized into six Goal Areas: Water Quantity, Water Quality, Groundwater, Wetlands, Drainage Systems, and Commission Operations and Programming. Detailed priorities and goals of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission are contained in Appendix D.

Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC)

# Minneapolis Goals and Policies

## Minneapolis Goals

The current statement of the City’s goals, and strategic direction, was adopted by the Minneapolis City Council on March 28, 2014. These are based on this Minneapolis Vision:

> *Minneapolis is a growing and vibrant world-class city with a flourishing economy and a pristine environment, where all people are safe, healthy and have equitable opportunities for success and happiness.*

The goals and strategic direction related to the Minneapolis Vision are embedded in or incorporated into the management of the City in order to align these goals with the business plans and annual

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 610 -->
budgets. The goals are also the foundation for the programs and activities implemented in the (future) Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan and in this WRMP. As part of development of the City’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan, City staff have developed a set of environmental policies that will influence the planning for the next 10 years. All of these goals, directions, and policies are listed in Table 2.1. Those directly related to water resource management are identified in this table.

City Vision, Value, Goals, and Strategic Direction

<!-- page 611 -->
This page intentionally left blank.

<!-- page 612 -->
#### Table 2.1 – Minneapolis Goals, Strategic Direction, Comprehensive Plan Environmental Policy, and Guiding Principles

| 2014 Goals, Strategic Direction, and Comprehensive Plan Environmental Policy | Water Resource Management Goal | Guiding Principle #1: Protect People Property and the Environment | Guiding Principle #2: Maintain and Enhance Infrastructure | Guiding Principle #3: Provide Cost Effective Solutions in a Sustainable Manner | Guiding Principle #4: Meet or Surpass Regulatory Requirements | Guiding Principle #5: Educate and Engage the Public | Guiding Principle #6: Enhance Livability and Safety |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Living well: Minneapolis is safe and livable and has an active and connected way of life | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | ✓ |
| ▪ All neighborhoods are safe, healthy and uniquely inviting. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | |
| ▪ High-quality, affordable housing choices exist for all ages, incomes and circumstances. | | | | | | | |
| ▪ Neighborhoods have amenities to meet daily needs and live a healthy life. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | ✓ |
| ▪ High-quality and convenient transportation options connect every corner of the city. | | ✓ | ✓ | | | | |
| ▪ Residents and visitors have ample arts, cultural, entertainment and recreational opportunities. | ✓ | | | | | | ✓ |
| ▪ The city grows with density done well. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| One Minneapolis: Disparities are eliminated so all Minneapolis residents can participate and prosper | | | | | | | ✓ |
| ▪ Racial inequities (including in housing, education, income and health) are addressed and eliminated. | | | | | | | ✓ |
| ▪ All people, regardless of circumstance, have opportunities for success at every stage of life. | | | | | | | ✓ |
| ▪ Equitable systems and policies lead to a high quality of life for all. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ All people have access to quality essentials, such as housing, education, food, child care and transportation. | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | ✓ |

<!-- page 613 -->
| 2014 Goals, Strategic Direction, and Comprehensive Plan Environmental Policy | Water Resource Management Goal | Guiding Principle #1: Protect People Property and the Environment | Guiding Principle #2: Maintain and Enhance Infrastructure | Guiding Principle #3: Provide Cost Effective Solutions in a Sustainable Manner | Guiding Principle #4: Meet or Surpass Regulatory Requirements | Guiding Principle #5: Educate and Engage the Public | Guiding Principle #6: Enhance Livability and Safety |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| ▪ Residents are informed, see themselves represented in City government and have the opportunity to influence decision-making. | | | | | | ✓ | |
| A hub of economic activity and innovation: Businesses – big and small – start, move, stay and grow here | ✓ | | | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ |
| ▪ Regulations, policies and programs are efficient and reliable while protecting the public’s interests. | ✓ | | | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| ▪ The workforce is diverse, well-educated and equipped with in-demand skills. | | | | | | | ✓ |
| ▪ We support entrepreneurship while building on sector (such as arts, green, tourism, health, education and high-tech) strengths. | | | | | ✓ | | |
| ▪ We focus on areas of greatest need and seize promising opportunities. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | ✓ |
| ▪ Infrastructure, public services and community assets support businesses and commerce. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ |
| ▪ Strategies with our City and regional partners are aligned, leading to economic success. | | | | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| Great Places: Natural and built spaces work together and our environment is protected | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ All Minneapolis residents, visitors and employees have a safe and healthy environment. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | ✓ |
| ▪ We sustain resources for future generations by reducing consumption, minimizing waste and using less energy. | ✓ | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ |

<!-- page 614 -->
| 2014 Goals, Strategic Direction, and Comprehensive Plan Environmental Policy | Water Resource Management Goal | Guiding Principle #1: Protect People Property and the Environment | Guiding Principle #2: Maintain and Enhance Infrastructure | Guiding Principle #3: Provide Cost Effective Solutions in a Sustainable Manner | Guiding Principle #4: Meet or Surpass Regulatory Requirements | Guiding Principle #5: Educate and Engage the Public | Guiding Principle #6: Enhance Livability and Safety |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| ▪ The City restores and protects land, water, air and other natural resources. | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ |
| ▪ We manage and improve the city’s infrastructure for current and future needs. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Iconic, inviting streets, spaces and buildings create a sense of place. | ✓ | | ✓ | ✓ | | | ✓ |
| ▪ We welcome our growing and diversifying population with thoughtful planning and design. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| A City that works: City government runs well and connects to the community it serves | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Decisions bring City values to life and put City goals into action. | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Engaged and talented employees reflect our community, have the resources they need to succeed and are empowered to improve our efficiency and effectiveness. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Departments work seamlessly and strategically with each other and with the community. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| ▪ City operations are efficient, effective, results driven, and customer focused. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| ▪ Transparency, accountability and ethics establish public trust. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Responsible tax policy and sound financial management provide short-term stability and long-term fiscal health. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 615 -->
| 2014 Goals, Strategic Direction, and Comprehensive Plan Environmental Policy | Water Resource Management Goal | Guiding Principle #1: Protect People Property and the Environment | Guiding Principle #2: Maintain and Enhance Infrastructure | Guiding Principle #3: Provide Cost Effective Solutions in a Sustainable Manner | Guiding Principle #4: Meet or Surpass Regulatory Requirements | Guiding Principle #5: Educate and Engage the Public | Guiding Principle #6: Enhance Livability and Safety |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Water Policy 1, Protect the City's lakes, creeks, and river as public assets, natural systems, and recreational assets, and manage the surface waters and groundwater, along with public infrastructure for drinking water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater systems, equitably and sustainably to meet current and future needs for those who live, work, do business, and recreate in the City. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Water Policy 2, Integrate water resource management into public and private projects to address multiple stressors, goals, and benefits and minimize adverse impacts to groundwater, or adverse impacts from groundwater to infrastructure, property, and the environment. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Water Policy 3, Value and manage natural areas in and around surface waters, as well as stormwater ponds and other stormwater treatment facilities, as areas supportive of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, habitat, and wildlife and as flood storage areas. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Water Policy 4, Respond to and work to minimize adverse impacts of climate change on surface waters, groundwater and stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water infrastructure. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 616 -->
### Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Goals

The MPRB adopted their vision statement and vision themes as a part of the development of the [Comprehensive Plan, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 2007-2020](http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=972). As the primary property owner along the City of Minneapolis’ lakes and streams, the MPRB has developed specific goals tied to water resource management. Those goals directly related to water resource management are listed in Table 2.2.

**Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

[MPRB Mission, Vision, and Values](http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=1173)

<!-- page 617 -->
This page intentionally left blank.

<!-- page 618 -->
Table 2.2 – MPRB Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles

| MPRB Vision and Goals | Water Resources Goal | Guiding Principle #1: Protect People Property and the Environment | Guiding Principle #2: Maintain and Enhance Infrastructure | Guiding Principle #3: Provide Cost Effective Solutions in a Sustainable Manner | Guiding Principle #4: Meet or Surpass Regulatory Requirements | Guiding Principle #5: Educate and Engage the Public | Guiding Principle #6: Enhance Livability and Safety |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Vision Theme 1: Urban forests, natural areas, and waters that endure and captivate | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Sound management techniques provide healthy, diverse, and sustainable natural resources. | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ | | | ✓ |
| ▪ Healthy boulevard trees connect all city residents to their park system. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ |
| ▪ Residents and visitors enjoy and understand the natural environment. | ✓ | | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ People and the environment benefit from the expansion and protection of natural resources. | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ | | | ✓ |
| ▪ Knowledgeable stewards and partners generously support the system's natural resources. | ✓ | | | ✓ | | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vision Theme 2: Recreation that inspires personal growth, healthy lifestyles, and a sense of community | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ People play, learn, and develop a greater capacity to enjoy life. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Residents, visitors, and workers enjoy opportunities to improve health and fitness. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | | ✓ |
| ▪ People connect through parks and recreation. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Volunteers make a vital difference to people, parks, and the community. | ✓ | | | | | ✓ | |
| ▪ Parks provide a center for community living. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 619 -->
| MPRB Vision and Goals | Water Resources Goal | Guiding Principle #1: Protect People Property and the Environment | Guiding Principle #2: Maintain and Enhance Infrastructure | Guiding Principle #3: Provide Cost Effective Solutions in a Sustainable Manner | Guiding Principle #4: Meet or Surpass Regulatory Requirements | Guiding Principle #5: Educate and Engage the Public | Guiding Principle #6: Enhance Livability and Safety |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Vision Theme 3: Dynamic parks that shape city character and meet diverse community needs | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Parks shape an evolving city. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | | ✓ |
| ▪ Park facility renewal and development respects history and focuses on sustainability, accessibility, flexibility, and beauty. | ✓ | | ✓ | ✓ | | | |
| ▪ Focused land management supports current and future generations. | ✓ | ✓ | | ✓ | | | ✓ |
| ▪ Financially independent and sustainable parks prosper. | ✓ | | | ✓ | | | |
| ▪ Through outreach and research, park and recreation services are relevant today and tomorrow. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | |
| ▪ Easily accessible information supports enjoyment and use of the park and recreation system. | ✓ | | | | | ✓ | |
| Vision Theme 4: A safe place to play, celebrate, contemplate, and recreate | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Positive recreation experiences and welcoming parks prevent crime. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Residents, park visitors, and staff make safe choices in the parks. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Intervention and communication reduces safety concerns. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Parks are safe and welcoming by design. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |
| ▪ Communities, public and private partners, and staff cooperate to promote safety. | ✓ | ✓ | | | | ✓ | ✓ |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 620 -->
# Minneapolis Water Resource Management Policies

## Minneapolis Water Resource Guiding Principles

The City and MPRB intend to accomplish their goals and policies through careful consideration of budget limitations, changes to regulations, aging infrastructure needs, and natural resource needs. To further define and accomplish these goals, the WRMP sets up more specific guidance that fits generalized goals into actions that are of critical importance to infrastructure and water resource management, called Guiding Principles. These Guiding Principles are:

### Guiding Principle #1 – Protect People, Property, and the Environment

Two significant programs implemented in the City have a common goal of protection of the health and safety of the people of Minneapolis. The CSO I/I program has resulted in elimination of the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River since 2010. The Flood Mitigation program protects property from the damages incurred by severe and/or regular flooding. Protection of people, property, and the environment means that:

* Overflows from sanitary sewers occur only during extreme events.
* Structures are protected from flooding during the 100-year storm.
* Roadway flooding that impacts public safety and/or commerce is minimized.
* Structures, infrastructure, and surface waters are protected from the detrimental effects of soil erosion and sedimentation.

### Guiding Principle #2 – Maintain and Enhance Infrastructure

**Brick Egg Sewer**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The most effective stormwater BMPs are based on pollution prevention activities, such as maintenance of public infrastructure. For the purpose of this WRMP, the definition of infrastructure includes both structural components (i.e., pipes and stormwater management practice) and natural resource components (i.e., boulevard trees, native vegetation, and natural areas in parks). Critical maintenance practices undertaken by the City include street and public parking lot sweeping, sediment/debris removal from stormwater management practices, construction site erosion and sediment control, facility management, natural resource management, and vegetation management. Maintenance and enhancement of the public infrastructure requires the City to:

* Routinely assess the condition of the sanitary sewers and storm drains.

<!-- page 621 -->
* Identify and correct sanitary sewer and storm drain capacity issues.
* Inspect and maintain infrastructure and natural resources in a manner that maximizes effectiveness and longevity.
* Develop capital improvements in a manner that minimizes lifecycle costs.
* Match resources to meet needs of inspection, assessment, and implementation requirements.
* Incorporate latest projections of rainfall quantities and frequencies based on advances in modeling and climate science.

### Guiding Principle #3 – Provide Cost-Effective Services in a Sustainable Manner

Whenever there are two alternatives that meet the same goal, the City and MPRB will opt for the most cost-effective solution. All lifecycle issues will be a component of cost-effective analyses that involves assessment of the planning/design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases of the infrastructure. Providing cost-effective services in a sustainable manner requires that:

* Both short-term and long-term lifecycle analyses will be conducted to adequately assess all project/program costs.
* Lifecycle analyses will include all costs.
* Multi-objective strategies for water resources management are evaluated with all projects and programs.
* The capabilities and capacities of existing water resources systems are optimized.
* Source water is protected to improve water treatment efficiency.
* Multi-functional capital projects are collaborative.

### Guiding Principle #4 – Meet or Surpass Regulatory Requirements

At a minimum, all water resources management activities must meet regulatory requirements. However, Minneapolis residents have voiced the expectation that surface water quality should surpass minimum requirements. Therefore, Minneapolis activities often aim to surpass regulatory requirements, which requires that the City:

* Maintain communications with watershed organizations and adjacent municipalities to maximize cooperative activities and projects that achieve the goals of multiple organizations.
* Anticipate regulatory trends and implement projects/programs before a regulation is finalized.
* Apply standard Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) to control pollutants in stormwater.
* Provide cross-jurisdictional support to local sewer and stormwater agencies whenever circumstances, such as major storm events, require additional services than available by the local agency.
* Collaborate with watershed organizations early during public and private project development to work towards more beneficial water quality outcomes.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 622 -->
# Guiding Principle #5 – Educate and Engage the Public and Stakeholders

**Planting for Pollinators**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The City and the MPRB have long involved the public in the development of public improvements and programs. A portion of the budget for all projects includes funds to engage the public stakeholders during development of a project/program and educate the public and stakeholders once the project/program is implemented. Education and engagement of the public and stakeholders requires that:

*   The public’s role in water resources management is established and understood.
*   The stakeholders in each project/program are identified and engaged early in the project’s/program’s development.
*   The service needs and expectations of the public are understood and dictate education and engagement.
*   The public’s and stakeholder’s responsibility, accountability, creativity, and innovation is promoted.
*   Employee leadership of citizen engagement activities is the norm and results in effective projects and programs.
*   Engagement and education processes facilitate incorporation of regional goals and strategies in water resources management projects/programs.
*   Engagement and education processes recognize and respond to the various needs and abilities of a diverse public and accommodates accessibility needs, including language barriers, cultural differences, socioeconomic factors, and more.
*   Collaborate with watershed organizations and other stakeholders during the development and implementation of water resource management ordiannces, policies, and guidance documents.

<!-- page 623 -->
### Guiding Principle #6 – Enhance Livability and Safety

Residents judge the quality of their neighborhood by the standards of livability and safety. The quality of Minneapolis parks, and the quality of the surface waters within each park, is directly tied to the success of livability in Minneapolis. Enhancing livability and safety require that:

*   High quality water resources are integral to the fabric of the City.
*   All water is valued as an asset.
*   Water resources are managed to contribute to the fulfillment of quality life expectations.

**Kayak School**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

These water resource management guiding principles provide the direction needed to allow water resources management activities to meet multiple goals – no single principle can be tied to a single goal.

### Progress Towards Goals

The City has set up internal monitoring activities that track progress towards water resource management goals. Starting in 2019, for 2018 activities, these will be described in detail in the City’s annual reports:

*   NPDES Annual Report Documents tracks stormwater management and CSO management activities and goals set by the NPDES Integrated Permit.
*   MPRB – Water Resources Report tracks water quality trends in lakes plus other MPRB water resources management activities.

The NPDES CSO and stormwater annual reports will be combined into a single annual report for 2018 activities, which will be published in 2019.

[NPDES Annual Report Documents](NPDES Annual Report Documents)
[MPRB Water Resources Reports](MPRB Water Resources Reports)
[CSO Annual Reports](CSO Annual Reports)

## Responsibility for Implementation of Goals and Policies

### City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Responsibilities

Responsibility for water resources management in Minneapolis is split between the City and the MPRB. The City is responsible for the public infrastructure and land use on non-MPRB properties. Authority for lake, beach, and shoreland management is delegated to the MPRB in Minneapolis City Charter Chapter 16, Section 11:

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 624 -->
*‘Whenever the title shall have been acquired for the purpose of this chapter, to the land constituting the shore or shores of any stream of water, lake or pond, said Board may regulate and control the use of such shore or shores and the water contiguous thereto, and in case such ownership should embrace the entire shore or any such lake or pond, said Board is hereby empowered to take any and have exclusive charge and control of the waters of said lake, and may in all things regulate and govern the use of such waters and may prescribe penalties for the violation of such rule and ordinances as it may adopt for that purpose; provided, that said Board shall not prohibit the use of sail or rowboats on such waters.’*

Both the City and the MPRB utilize three primary tools to manage water resources within their respective jurisdictions:

*   Ordinances that regulate activities on private properties.
*   Structural physical infrastructure that conveys, stores, and/or treats sanitary sewage and stormwater drainage.
*   Non-structural activities that serve to prevent the discharge of pollutants to water resources.

### Camden Lumberman Sculpture by Roger Brodin near Webber Pond

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The physical infrastructure is further described in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment, and the ordinances and other non-structural water resource protection activities are described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

## Water Resources Related Agreements
The City is party to a number of water resources related cooperative agreements. Copies of current agreements are on file and available from Minneapolis Public Works – Division of Surface Waters and Sewers.

### Water Resources Agreements
Following is a list of the water resources agreements in effect in 2018:

*   Joint powers agreements for the establishment of the following watershed organizations:
    *   Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission amended Joint Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of a Bassett Creek Watershed Management Organization to plan, control, and provide for the development of Bassett Creek, showing changes effective August 29, 2014.

<!-- page 625 -->
* Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, and Agreement No. C-28991 Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, effective June 2012.

* Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of a Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to plan, control, and provide for the development of the Shingle Creek Watershed, June 15, 1894, amended March 21, 2006. Agreement was also amended on July 17, 2015, which extended the duration of the joint powers agreement to January 1, 2025.

- Cooperative agreement for the maintenance of County State Aid Highways, Agreement No. C-40670 Road Maintenance Agreement between the County of Hennepin and the City of Minneapolis.

- Cooperative agreement for the maintenance of State Trunk Highways, Agreement No. C-42388 (MnDOT Agreement No. 1001240) State of Minnesota Department of Transportation Routine Maintenance Agreement. Includes a provision that the maintain 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity on the “old” Bassett Creek Tunnel during the 100-year storm event to accommodate the overflow of stormwater that cannot be accommodated in the “new” tunnel.

- Joint and Cooperative Agreement No. C-015730 for Boundary Change, BCWMC and MWMO, September 28, 2000. Includes requirement that the City maintain capacity in the “old” Bassett Creek Tunnel to allow for 50 cfs.

- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the City, MPRB, and MCWD was approved by the Minneapolis City Council in April 2017. The MOU defines processes and commitments for integrated planning, policy, and capital project initiatives across the three organizations. Additionally, it will guide an integrated planning process that actively coordinates and aligns respective work within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed area in the City of Minneapolis.

- Local Cooperation Agreement between Department of the Army and the City for Flood Protection on Bassett Creek (new tunnel construction), June 27, 1986.

- Agreement under Section 215 of Public Law 90-483 Flood Control Project Basset Creek Watershed, Hennepin County, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Golden Valley, May 11, 1979.

- Agreement entered into pursuant to provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Bassett Creek Water Management Organization, relating to the construction of an improvement project in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minneapolis and Minnetonka, June 16, 1986; Minneapolis and Robbinsdale, June 17, 1986; Minneapolis and Plymouth, July 7, 1986; Minneapolis and Golden Valley, June 16, 1986; Minneapolis and New Hope, June 9, 1986; Minneapolis and Medicine Lake, June 10, 1986; Minneapolis and Crystal, June 17, 1986; Minneapolis and Saint Louis Park, June 11, 1986.

- Agreement No. 58881, Cooperative Construction Agreement, RE: City cost participation of storm drain tunnel facilities construction by the State primarily along 2^nd Street North between 12^th Avenue North and 3^rd Street North and the Middle Pool of the Mississippi River, February 2, 1978, MnDOT and the City of Minneapolis.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 626 -->
* Agreement No. 58881-1, Cooperative Construction Agreement, Supplement No. 1, RE: City cost participation of storm drain tunnel facilities construction by the State primarily along 2^nd[^ ]Street North between 12^th[^ ]Avenue North and 3^rd[^ ]Street North and the Middle Pool of the Mississippi River, January 28, 1988, MnDOT and the City of Minneapolis.

* Agreement No. 64742, Cooperative Construction Agreement, RE: State cost participation of storm drain tunnel facilities construction by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adjacent to T.H. 394 on 3^rd[^ ]Avenue North from 2^nd[^ ]Avenue North to the T.H. 94 ramps in Minneapolis, June 27, 1988, MnDOT and the City of Minneapolis.

* Permit #D-08-21205, MnDOT application for drainage permit, Minnesota Ballpark Authority, January 12, 2008 for stormwater runoff connection from the Twins stadium to new Bassett Creek tunnel.

### Sanitary Sewer Agreements

The following agreements have been entered into by the City, which relate to the operation of the sanitary sewer system:

* Interagency agreement between the City and the Metropolitan Council detailing each entity’s responsibilities under the 2018 NPDES Integrated Permit. The agreement governs the study of, investment in, and renewal of the interconnected sanitary infrastructure.

* Eleven agencies in the Fort Snelling area have agreements with the City of Minneapolis for water and sanitary sewer service, listed below:

  * Fort Snelling Park.
  * Henry Whipple Building (GSA).
  * Metropolitan Airport Commission.
  * Minnesota Air National Guard.
  * Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
  * Minnesota Department of Transportation.
  * U.S. Naval Reserve.
  * Veterans Medical Center.
  * Veterans Administration.
  * 934^th[^ ]Medical Service Corps (MSC)/CERU.

Copies of these interagency agreements are available from the Water Treatment and Distribution Division of Minneapolis Public Works.

The City has not entered into any intercommunity agreements with an adjoining community after December 31, 2008.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 627 -->
## Compliance with Regulatory Requirements

The City works to balance all regulatory requirements alongside the infrastructure management requirements that are typical of a fully developed city with systems that have been in operation for nearly 150 years. Additionally, compliance with regulatory requirements also requires that the City balance the hydraulic needs of the sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage systems. For example, stormwater disconnected from sanitary sewers for I/I compliance should not cause hydraulic capacity issues in the stormwater drainage system. Given these complexities, the City is fully compliant with the water resource regulatory requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations, state statutes and rules, and watershed organization requirements. To satisfy these requirements, the City has established goals as described in Section 2 – Regulatory Requirements, Goals, and Policies, and programs as detailed in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment, Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment, and Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs. The following provides a summary of how the City is compliant with the regulations cited in this section.

### Federal Water Resource Compliance

#### NPDES Stormwater and Combined Sewer Requirements

The City has been subject to NPDES permit requirements since the initial CSO permit was issued in 1980. The permit was reissued with minor modifications in 1986, 1991, and 1997. These permits detailed the specific actions that the City and the Metropolitan Council were required to implement to reduce, and ultimately minimize, the occurrence of overflows to the Mississippi River of combined sewage/stormwater runoff. In 1990, the EPA issued the Phase I stormwater rules which required larger cities, such as Minneapolis, to develop a comprehensive stormwater management program. The City met the requirements of these rules and began to expand its stormwater management program in 1992 to incorporate water quality management structures and practices. The MPCA eventually issued the first NPDES stormwater permit to Minneapolis in 2000, which was reissued in 2011.

The City continues to manage its sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage systems in compliance with NPDES permits issued prior to the date of this WRMP. Details of the specific programs and projects established to meet these permit requirements are contained in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment and Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

#### Sanitary Sewer Overflow Requirements

The City is subject to the Capacity Management Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) requirements issued by the EPA. To meet these requirements, the City has opted to incorporate the specific activities into its asset management program.

#### National Flood Insurance Program

The City has been enrolled in the NFIP since 1974. Enrollment in the program has led to the development of the City’s floodplain ordinance and maps that identify the floodplain boundaries along the major streams in the City: Mississippi River, Bassett Creek, Minnehaha Creek, and Shingle Creek. The ordinances and maps have been updated over the 44 years that this program has been in effect. The

<!-- page 628 -->
most current ordinance went into effect on November 4, 2016 and the most current update of the flood maps went into effect on November 4, 2016.

### State Water Resource Compliance
#### Local Surface Water Management Plans
The purpose of this WRMP is to comply with the local water plan requirements established by the BWSR. Additional information on the development, adoption, and future amendments to this WRMP is contained in Section 1 – History and Overview of Minneapolis Water Resources. Appendix A includes a list of the specific requirements for this WRMP and the section of this plan that contains the required information.

#### Wetland Conservation Act
The City is the LGU responsible for the review and approval of proposals to alter wetlands within the City except for those wetlands located within the Minnehaha Creek watershed, for which the MCWD is the LGU. As an LGU, Minneapolis requires that wetland delineation surveys and mitigation plans be completed for all construction projects that propose to alter a wetland. Minneapolis also coordinates with watershed organizations to ensure that both the WCA and watershed organization requirements are met. Specific program information is contained in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

#### Total Maximum Daily Load
Each individual TMDL implementation plan contains specific actions that cities and others should undertake that would, over time, improve the water quality of the specific waterbody to a non-impaired status. The measurable goals of each TMDL implementation plan are set in terms of Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges, including the discharges permitted in the NPDES Integrated Permit. Each plan will contain a WLA numerical maximum pollutant discharge goal for removal of pollutants from municipal stormwater runoff. The City’s NPDES stormwater permit contains a requirement that Minneapolis implement projects and practices as defined as the municipal WLA for each approved TMDL implementation plan. The City’s approach is contained in the City’s Stormwater Management Program. Specific activities for each approved TMDL implementation plan that is in effect as of the date of this WRMP is described in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment.

#### Minimal Impact Design Standards
MIDS was developed as a voluntary program. There is no specific state requirement that cities must impose MIDS standards on projects; however, some watershed districts and management organizations have adopted MIDS standards. In accordance with the NPDES Integrated Permit, the City is using the MIDS goals and MIDS Flexible Treatment Options specific to ultra-urban conditions as a foundation for developing revised regulatory controls that address volume management requirements.

#### Buffer Law
The Minnesota Buffer Law that was enacted in 2015 and amended in 2016 includes a provision that grants a waiver from Buffer Law requirements for cities subject to NPDES stormwater permits. Therefore, the City is not required to establish any buffer protection programs or projects.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 629 -->
### Anti-Degradation Rules
In 2010, the MPCA determined that the City is compliant with anti-degradation requirements, and therefore, additional conditions are not required for the City’s NPDES permit. If anti-degradation does become a condition of the City’s NPDES stormwater permit, then the City will be required to develop anti-degradation prevention, treatment, or pollutant load offset procedures to ensure that developments in the City do not cause an increase in pollutant loads to high quality surface waters. Therefore, the City is fully compliant with anti-degradation requirements and no additional actions are necessary.

## Regional Water Resource Compliance
### Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan
This Water Resource Management Plan is developed to meet both the stormwater and sanitary sewer requirements for comprehensive plans as established by the Metropolitan Council. This Plan will be incorporated as an appendix to the 2018 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan. Appendix A includes a list of the specific requirements set by the Metropolitan Council and the section of this plan that contains the required information.

### Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Program
The City’s approach to reduction in I/I contributions to the sanitary sewer is founded in the CSO approach that was established in the NPDES permit requirements. CSO program progress is described in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment. The primary source of I/I from private properties has been identified as direct connections between rooftop drainage and the sanitary sewers. The inspection and elimination of these rooftop connections is further described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

**Downtown Smoke Testing of Sanitary Sewers**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

**Neighborhood Smoke Testing of Sanitary Sewers**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 630 -->
### Local Watershed Organization Requirements

The four watershed organizations that have jurisdiction in the City have each created a set of requirements for the City to implement through this WRMP. Appendix A includes a list of the specific requirements set by each watershed organization and the section of this plan that contains the required information.

<!-- page 631 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 632 -->
# Section 3 – Land and Water Resources Inventory and Assessment

## Overview

The focus of this section of the Minneapolis Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) is on the City’s physical environment, including rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands, as required by Minnesota Rule 8410 and by the requirements of each watershed management authority with jurisdiction within the municipal boundaries of the City. Detailed information is provided for each water resource that is listed as a public water (also termed Protected Water) by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). The detailed information includes Department of Natural Resources (DNR) classification, Chapter 7050 beneficial use classification[^p632-1], stream length, watershed area, and watershed management information, as well as historical information and current water quality.

## Population, Land Area, Neighborhood, and Parks

The City of Minneapolis is the largest city in Minnesota and the county seat of Hennepin County. The 2010 census population of 382,578 is spread over 87 neighborhoods, as shown in Figure 3.1. As of 2016, the City continues to grow, with an estimated population of 413,651.

The City has 151 parks that are wholly or partially within Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) property, which comprise a total of 10 square miles out of a total of 59 square miles of the City. The City has 645 square feet of parkland for every resident. There is a park within six blocks of every resident. In total, the Minneapolis Park System encompasses nearly 6,400 acres of land and water with approximately 24 miles of shoreline along lakes and 14 miles of shoreland along the Mississippi River. MPRB parks are listed in Table 3.1 and shown in Figure 3.2.

[^p632-1]: Chapter 7050 beneficial use classification are defined in Minnesota Administrative Rule 4050.0140 – Use Classifications for Waters of the State. Generally, Class 1 is applied to waters used for domestic consumption (such as the Mississippi River), Class 2 is applied to waters that support fish, other aquatic life, bathing, boating, or other recreational uses, Class 3 is applied to waters used for industrial consumption, Class 4 is applied to waters used for agriculture and wildlife such as waterfowl, Class 5 applies to waters used for aesthetic enjoyment and navigation, and Class 6 waters apply to all other uses.

<!-- page 633 -->
Figure 3.1 – City of Minneapolis Neighborhoods

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 634 -->
Table 3.1 – Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Parks

| Map ID | Park Name | Map ID | Park Name |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 0 | Shingle Creek Park | 44 | Alcott Triangle |
| 1 | Humboldt Greenway Park | 45 | Chowen Triangle |
| 2 | 49^th Ave Corridor Park | 46 | West End Triangle |
| 3 | Bohannon Park | 47 | Levin Triangle |
| 4 | North Mississippi Park | 48 | Smith Triangle |
| 5 | Webber Park | 49 | Mueller Park |
| 6 | Victory Memorial Parkway | 50 | Whittier Park |
| 7 | Victory Park | 51 | Soo Line Garden |
| 8 | Folwell Park | 52 | Bryant Square Park |
| 9 | Cleveland Park | 53 | Painter Park |
| 10 | Theodore Wirth Parkway | 54 | Dean Parkway |
| 11 | Valley View Park | 55 | Lake Calhoun Park |
| 12 | Perkins Hill Park | 56 | The Mall Park |
| 13 | Farview Park | 57 | William Berry Park |
| 14 | Jordan Park | 58 | Linden Hills Boulevard |
| 15 | Newton Triangle | 59 | Linden Hills Park |
| 16 | Glen Gale Park | 60 | Waveland Triangle |
| 17 | Irving Triangle | 61 | Pershing Field Park |
| 18 | Cottage Park | 62 | Dell Park |
| 19 | Russell Triangle | 63 | Reserve Block 40 Park |
| 20 | Oliver Triangle | 64 | Washburn Avenue Totlot Park |
| 21 | North Commons Park | 65 | Armatage Park |
| 22 | Willard Park | 66 | Penn Model Village Triangle |
| 23 | Hall Park | 67 | Kenny Park |
| 24 | Farwell Park | 68 | Lynnhurst Park |
| 25 | Lovell Square Park | 69 | Minnehaha Creek Parkway |
| 26 | Bethune Park | 70 | Meadowbrook Golf |
| 27 | Barnes Place Triangle | 71 | Windom South Park |
| 28 | Humboldt Triangle | 72 | Todd Park |
| 29 | Sumner Field Park | 73 | Pearl Park |
| 30 | Harrison Park | 74 | Kings Highway Park |
| 31 | Bassett's Creek Park | 75 | Gladstone Triangle |
| 32 | Laurel Triangle | 76 | Elmwood Triangle |
| 33 | Bryn Mawr Park | 77 | Rustic Lodge Triangle |
| 34 | Kenwood Parkway | 78 | Fuller Park |
| 35 | Kenwood Park | 79 | Lyndale Farmstead Park |
| 36 | Fremont Triangle | 80 | Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Park |
| 37 | Thomas Lowry Park | 81 | Stewart Park |
| 38 | Brownie Lake Park | 82 | Central Gym Park |
| 39 | Cedar Lake Trail – St. Louis Park | 83 | McRae Park |
| 40 | Cedar Lake Park | 84 | Phelps Park |
| 41 | Lake of the Isles Park | 85 | Sibley Park |
| 42 | Park Siding Park | 86 | Lake Hiawatha Park |
| 43 | St. Louis Triangle | 87 | Lake Hiawatha Park/Golf Course |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 635 -->
| Map ID | Park Name |
| :--- | :--- |
| 88 | Lake Nokomis Park |
| 89 | Shoreview & 54^th Street East Triangle |
| 90 | Shoreview & 54-½ Street East Triangle |
| 91 | Shoreview & 55^th Street East Triangle |
| 92 | Bossen Field Park |
| 93 | Morris Park |
| 94 | Keewaydin Park |
| 95 | Longfellow Gardens Park |
| 96 | Minnehaha Park |
| 97 | Hiawatha School Park |
| 98 | Adams Triangle |
| 99 | Longfellow Park |
| 100 | Seven Oaks Oval Park |
| 101 | Corcoran Park |
| 102 | Brackett Park |
| 103 | Matthews Park |
| 104 | Cedar Avenue Field Park |
| 105 | East Phillips Park |
| 106 | Normanna Triangle |
| 107 | Phillips Community Center |
| 108 | Peavey Park |
| 109 | Murphy Square Park |
| 110 | 28^th Street Totlot Park |
| 111 | Clinton Field Park |
| 112 | Morrison Park |
| 113 | Washburn Fair Oaks Park |
| 114 | Lake Harriet Park |
| 115 | Loring Park |
| 116 | Parade the Park |
| 117 | Stevens Square Park |
| 118 | Franklin Steele Square Park |
| 119 | Park Avenue Triangle |
| 120 | Elliot Park |
| 121 | Currie Park |
| 122 | Gateway Park |
| 123 | Vineland Triangle |
| 124 | Diamond Lake Park |
| 125 | West River Parkway |
| 126 | Orvin “Ole” Olson Park |
| 127 | Upper River West Bank Park |
| 128 | MPRB Headquarters |
| 129 | Camden Boat Launch |
| 130 | Caleb Dorr Circle |
| 131 | Chergosky Park |
| 132 | Clarence Triangle |

| Map ID | Park Name |
| :--- | :--- |
| 133 | Orlin Triangle |
| 134 | Barton Triangle |
| 135 | Tower Hill Park |
| 136 | Luxton Park |
| 137 | Van Cleve Park |
| 138 | Marcy Park |
| 139 | Holmes Park |
| 140 | Chute Square Park |
| 141 | Lucy Wilder Morris Park |
| 142 | Main Street Southeast Park |
| 143 | Nicollet Island Park |
| 144 | BF Nelson Park |
| 145 | Boom Island Park |
| 146 | Scherer Property |
| 147 | Dickman Park |
| 148 | Sibley Triangle |
| 149 | Saint Anthony Park |
| 150 | Monroe Place Triangle |
| 151 | Washington Triangle |
| 152 | Sheridan Memorial Park |
| 153 | Logan Park |
| 154 | Beltrami Park |
| 155 | Northeast Ice Arena |
| 156 | Northeast Athletic Field Park |
| 157 | Ridgway Parkway |
| 158 | Gross Golf |
| 159 | Stinson Park |
| 160 | Windom Northeast Park |
| 161 | Deming Heights Park |
| 162 | Columbia Park Golf Course |
| 163 | Waite Park |
| 164 | Cavell Park |
| 165 | Architect Triangle |
| 166 | Hi-View Park |
| 167 | Audubon Park |
| 168 | Marshall Terrace Park |
| 169 | Edgewater Park |
| 170 | 2220 Marshall Street Northeast |
| 171 | 2128 Marshall Street Northeast |
| 172 | Gluek Park |
| 173 | 1808 Marshall Street Northeast |
| 174 | 1812 Marshall Street Northeast |
| 175 | 1720 Marshall Street Northeast |
| 176 | Jackson Square Park |
| 177 | Oak Crest Triangle |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 636 -->
| Map ID | Park Name |
| :--- | :--- |
| 178 | Bottineau Park |
| 179 | Theodore Wirth Park |
| 180 | East River Parkway |
| 181 | Powderhorn Park |
| 182 | Riverside Park |
| 183 | Bohemian Flats Park |
| 184 | Creekview Park |
| 185 | First Bridge Park |
| 186 | Mill Ruins Park |
| 187 | East River Flats |
| 188 | Beard's Plaisance Park |
| 189 | Rose/Peace Garden |
| 190 | Theodore Wirth Golf Course |
| 191 | James I. Rice West River Parkway |
| 192 | Eloise Butler Wildflower Garden |
| 193 | Bluff Street Park |
| 194 | Edward C. Solomon Park |
| 195 | Fort Snelling Sports Complex |
| 196 | Central Gym Park |
| 197 | Northwest Bell Property Park |
| 198 | Xcel Energy Field |
| 199 | Victory Prairie Dog Park |
| 200 | 1828 Marshall Street Northeast |
| 201 | 1415 Ramsey Street Northeast |
| 202 | 1510 Water Street Northeast |
| 203 | 1601 16^th Avenue Northeast |
| 204 | 1326 Water Street Northeast |
| 205 | Graco Trail Easement |
| 206 | 1604-½ Marshall Street Northeast |
| 207 | Father Hennepin Bluffs |
| 208 | 1822 Marshall Street Northeast |
| 209 | 30 31^st Avenue North |
| 210 | 1500 Water Street Northeast |
| 211 | 3101 Pacific Street |
| 212 | 50 31^st Avenue North |
| 213 | Saint Anthony Parkway |
| 214 | Saint Anthony & Columbia Trail |
| 215 | Ramsey Parcel Park |
| 216 | Loring School Pool |
| 217 | Ryan Lake Park |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 637 -->
### Figure 3.2 – Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Parks

<<FIGURE>>

City of Minneapolis
### Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Parks

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| | Water Bodies |
| | Minneapolis Boundary |
| | Parks |

0 1 2 Miles

<!-- page 638 -->
## Soils

The City surface soils are highly variable and altered, which is typical of urban cities. The University of Minnesota Department of Soil, Water, Climate and Land Management reports that the native soils in the City are broadly classified as two main soil types: sandy/loamy or silty. Due to the history of the development in the City, there are few areas that have undisturbed soils. Specific soil information is contained in the following watershed management plans and is incorporated into the Minneapolis WRMP by reference.

### Bassett Creek Water Management Commission

Hydrologic soil groups within the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) area are shown in Figure 2.5 of the Commission’s 2015 Management Plan. The soils for the area of Minneapolis are shown as “not rated or not available.”

### Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

The area of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) that is east of Highway 169, which includes the City, is generally categorized as disturbed soils and have not been assigned a hydrologic soil group. This information is shown on Figure 3 of the 2006 Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed Plan[^p638-2], amended June 2013. This data was not amended in the 2018 Watershed Management Plan.

### Mississippi Watershed Management Organization

Soils information for the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO) area is detailed in the Watershed Management Plan 2011-2021, amended May 2015. Figure 9 – Present Day Urban Soils, identifies the majority of Minneapolis as having Urban Soils. Additional soil information is contained in Figure 10 – Modern Secondary Soil Information, and Figure 11 – Combined Historic and Modern Soil Information. Figure 15 shows that all four Hydrologic Soil Groups (A, B, C, and D) are present in the City, with the highest volume of runoff generated by Hydrologic Soil Group D, and the least volume of runoff generated by Group A soils.

### Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission

The majority of the soils of the Minneapolis area within the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) boundaries consist primarily of Hydrologic Soil Groups A (sandy) and B (loamy). This data is shown in Figure 2.3 of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Third Generation Watershed Management Plan, April 2013.

### Digital Soil Maps

An additional source of soil information is available from the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office (MnGEO). MnGEO has created digital datasets of soil information that are based on county soil surveys published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), including the Hennepin County Soil

***

[^p638-2]: MCWD 2017 Comprehensive Plan (draft), page 57, incorporates landforms and geology from the 2007 MCWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan.

<!-- page 639 -->
Survey. Detailed soil maps may be generated, with an example of the available data shown in Figure 3.3. The same information in printable format is available online from NRCS.

### Figure 3.3 – Detailed Soil Map

<<FIGURE>>

Source: MnGEO website[^p639-3]

# Climate

## Precipitation

The City has a continental climate, strongly influenced in the summer months by weather systems that originate in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean. Average and maximum precipitation data are listed in Table 3.2. Precipitation in the form of snowfall is included in these values and is described in terms of water equivalent. Growing season (May through September) precipitation averages 19.03 inches, or approximately 62 percent of the annual precipitation, based on normal precipitation recorded at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul (MSP) International Airport for the period of 1981 through 2010.

***

[^p639-3]: Minnesota IT Services, Geospatial Information Office. Digital Soil Mapping in Minnesota. East Mississippi River and Southeast Minneapolis Detailed Soil Map. Generated by CDM Smith. October 2016.

<!-- page 640 -->
### Table 3.2 – City of Minneapolis Precipitation Data

| Measure [^p640-a] | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Mean Precipitation (inches) [^p640-b] | 2.43 | 1.77 | 1.16 | 0.90 | 0.77 | 1.89 | 2.66 | 3.36 | 4.25 | 4.04 | 4.30 | 3.08 | 30.61 |
| Maximum Monthly Precipitation [^p640-c] (inches) | 5.68 | 5.29 | 4.27 | 3.63 | 2.14 | 4.75 | 7.00 | 9.34 | 9.82 | 17.90 | 9.32 | 7.53 | 17.90 |
| Maximum Monthly Precipitation [^p640-c] (year) | 1971 | 1991 | 1982 | 1937 | 1981 | 1965 | 2001 | 2012 | 1990 | 1987 | 2007 | 1942 | 1987 |
| Maximum 24-Hour Precipitation [^p640-c] (inches) | 4.83 | 2.91 | 2.47 | 1.21 | 1.34 | 1.66 | 2.58 | 3.39 | 3.28 | 10.00 | 7.36 | 3.55 | 10.00 |
| Maximum 24-Hour Precipitation [^p640-c] (year) | 2005 | 1940 | 1982 | 1967 | 2012 | 1965 | 2006 | 2012 | 2003 | 1987 | 1977 | 1942 | 1987 |

[^p640-a] Snow values represent water equivalent
[^p640-b] 30-year period of record (1981 through 2010)
[^p640-c] 75-year period of record (1940 through 2015)
(Source: University of Minnesota, Department of Soil, Water and Climate, 1981 through 2010,
http://www.files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/climate/twin_cities/msp_normals_means_extremes_page3.pdf

### Extreme Weather

In 2012 and 2013, Minneapolis Public Works participated in the innovative Weather – Extreme Trends (WET) study concerning response to climate change, funded through a grant from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The study dealt with stormwater drainage system vulnerability, capacity, and cost under climate change, and used long-term climate information and forecasts to support stakeholder-driven adaptation decisions for urban water resources. The purpose for federal funding of this project was to promote stakeholder-driven adaptation of vulnerable stormwater management systems and related water resources as a model for communities facing significant impacts from climate change. The project compared a fully developed area of the City with a developing suburban area in the City of Victoria. The project convened a broad cross-section of the community. The final project report was submitted on January 13, 2104, and the results will be of interest for the City’s use in future planning for climate change adaptation.

In anticipation of weather changes related to climate change, the City is committed to continue preservation of natural resources, disconnection of impervious surfaces, reduction in impervious areas, and increased installation of green infrastructure. These actions will serve to counter-act, or potentially improve, the rate and volume of stormwater runoff generated in the future.

### Atlas 14

In 2013, the NOAA released Atlas 14, Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Volume 8, which contains updated precipitation prediction data for 11 Midwestern states. The data in this report creates precipitation estimates for storms that have durations that range from 5 minutes to 60 days and

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 641 -->
for frequency intervals of 1-year through 1,000-year. The information updates and supersedes Technical Paper-40 (1961), which was the previous standard for the precipitation estimation utilized to size storm drainage structures within the City.

The Minneapolis Surface Water and Sewers Division of Public Works transitioned to Atlas 14 as the hydrologic basis for storm drainage infrastructure design, first effective for projects constructed in 2016.

### Snowfall and Snowmelt

In the winter months (November through March), snow predominates in the City. Table 3.3 lists average monthly snowfalls for the City. Snowfall occurs throughout the winter in small events that do not generate runoff. The snowmelt, which occurs over a comparatively short period of time (e.g., approximately two weeks) in March or April, does not affect the hydraulic capacity of the storm drainage system. Snowmelt does, however, have a significant pollutant load, which can affect the water quality of the water resource.

**Table 3.3 – Snowfall Monthly Averages in the City of Minneapolis**

| Measure | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Mean Snowfall (inches) | 0.6 | 9.3 | 11.5 | 12.1 | 7.8 | 10.2 | 2.5 | Trace | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Trace | 54.0 |
| Maximum Monthly Snowfall (inches) | 8.2 | 46.9 | 33.6 | 46.4 | 19.7 | 36.8 | 21.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 98.6 |
| Minimum Monthly Snowfall (inches) | 0.0 | 0.1 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.4 |
| Source: University of Minnesota, Department of Soil, Water and Climate, 1981 through 2010, http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/twin_cities/snowfall.html | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Hydrologically, the amount of precipitation that is contributed to the groundwater as recharge is between 6 inches and 8 inches per year, as reported by the Minnesota Geologic Society[^p641-4].

## Bedrock, Surficial Geology, and Topography

The Minnesota landscape is a product of the continental glaciers. It consists of gentle and steep hills, numerous marshes and lakes, and extensive outwash plains. The City has a relatively flat topography, which is a result of outwash deposition that occurred 14,000 years ago by the Des Moines Lobe of the late Wisconsin glaciations.

In general, the bedrock geology of the City consists of undivided layers of limestone, dolostone, sandstone, and shale categorized as Paleozoic Rocks that developed between 225 million years and 600

[^p641-4]: Geologic Atlas User’s Guide: Using Geologic Maps and Databases for Resource Management and Planning, MCS, Open-File Report OFR-12-1. http://www.mngs.umn.edu/user_guide_v1.pdf

<!-- page 642 -->
million years ago[^p642-5]. Surficial materials typically contain various combinations of sands, gravels, and loamy sands covered by the soils, previously described in the Soils section. Detailed maps of the Surficial and Bedrock Geology have been published as the Hennepin County Atlas Series, Atlas C-4, Plate 3 (Surficial Geology) and Plate 4 (Bedrock Geology).

Topography of the City is divided into four main watersheds: Bassett Creek, Minnehaha Creek, Mississippi River, and Shingle Creek. As noted in Table 3.4, approximately 5 percent of the land area is within the Bassett Creek watershed, 36 percent is within the Minnehaha Creek watershed, 54 percent is within the Mississippi River watershed, and 5 percent is within the Shingle Creek watershed. Note that these values represent the physical topography within the City and not the jurisdictional area of the associated watershed organization, which differ slightly.

#### Table 3.4 – Topographical Watersheds in the City of Minneapolis

| Topographical Watershed | Area of Watershed within the City of Minneapolis | Portion of City ᵃ |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Bassett Creek | 1,800 acres | 5% |
| Minnehaha Creek | 13,400 acres | 36% |
| Mississippi River | 19,900 acres | 54% |
| Shingle Creek | 2,000 acres | 5% |

*ᵃ Percentages are rounded*

More specific geologic information is contained in watershed management plans and is incorporated into the Minneapolis WRMP by reference, described as follows.

### Bassett Creek

A 50-foot layer of glacial drift materials covers the bedrock in the BCWMC area of the City. The bedrock consists of Platteville Limestone over Glenwood Shale. The major bedrock aquifer is within the St. Peter Sandstone, below the Glenwood Shale. Additional detailed information can be found in Section 2.5 of the 2015 Management Plan.

### Minnehaha Creek

The bedrock within the City region of the MCWD ranges from 0 feet to 100 feet below the surface. Unique features within the City include glacial drift deposits under Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet, and exposed bedrock at Minnehaha Falls. Additional detailed information can be found in Section 2.2.2 of the MCWD 2007-2017 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed Plan, amended June 2013. This data was not amended in the 2018 Watershed Management Plan.

### Mississippi River

The Mississippi River has a distinct geologic stratigraphy with a layer of glacial till and river deposits that overlay oceanic limestone, shale, and sandstone bedrock. Under the City, groundwater is located in

***

[^p642-5]: Geologic Atlas User’s Guide: Using Geologic Maps and Databases for Resource Management and Planning, MCS, Open-File Report OFR-12-1. http://www.mngs.umn.edu/user_guide_v1.pdf

<!-- page 643 -->
unconsolidated deposits and bedrock formations. Bedrock, examples of which are exposed along the Mississippi River bluffs, is not continuous beneath the glacial drift.

The MWMO Watershed Management Plan 2011-2021, amended May 2015, described two geologic areas within the City: along the Mississippi River and the upland areas beyond the River. Within the Mississippi River corridor, the bedrock is 0 feet to 10 feet below the surface, with areas of exposed bedrock, terrace deposits, peat deposits, and a post-glacial stream. Further from the river, the bedrock ranges from 10 feet to 200 feet below the surface with the overburden consisting of glacial outwash and till. There is a deep valley that runs through the bedrock along a northeast-to-southwest alignment through the City that starts in Columbia Heights and continues through the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. Additional detailed information can be found in Figure 5 through Figure 7 of Section 4.2.3 of the MWMO Watershed Management Plan.

### Shingle Creek
The SCWMC Third Generation Watershed Management Plan, April 2013, describes the City as within the Mississippi Valley Outwash geomorphic region. Bedrock is primarily St. Peter Sandstone. Additional detailed information can be found in Section 2.2.5 of the SCWMC plan.

## Land Use and Zoning
The Minneapolis Zoning Code is the primary tool used by the City to manage land use within five primary zoning districts: residential, office-residential, commercial, industrial, and downtown. Additionally, there are three types of overlay districts that influence water resource management as defined in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs. These three overlay districts include Floodplain Overlay District, Shoreland Overlay District, and the Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay District. Each primary and overlay zoning district has clearly defined allowable and prohibited land uses. Specific land use requirements can be found in the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 20, Minneapolis Zoning Code.

The City has developed land use policies that guide those development and redevelopment projects that propose changes to land use. The most current land use policies were updated in June 2016 and will be in effect until the updated Minneapolis comprehensive plan, Minneapolis 2040, is in effect. The completed plan is anticipated to be completed in late 2018.

The Metropolitan Council estimates that the population of Minneapolis will grow from an estimated 2016 population of 413,651 to a projected population of 459,200 in 2040. To accommodate this growth, planners anticipate a shift to higher density land uses. This shift in land use is detailed in Minneapolis 2040.

Current City land use is shown in Figure 3.4. Future land use information will be available in the Land Use chapter of the 2018 Minneapolis Plan.

Descriptions of how land use information is utilized in sanitary sewer and stormwater capacity estimations are included in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 644 -->
### Figure 3.4 – City of Minneapolis Land Use

<<FIGURE>>

City of Minneapolis
### Land Use

| Land Use Categories | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Low-Density Housing (up to 20 DU/acre) | Public/Institutional |
| Medium-Density Housing (20-50 DU/acre) | Cultural/Entertainment |
| High Density Housing (50-120 DU/acre) | Transportation/Communication/Utilities |
| Very High-Density Housing (>120 DU/acre) | Light Industrial |
| Congregate Living | General Industrial |
| Commercial | Parks/Open Space |
| Mixed Use | Vacant |
| | Minneapolis Boundary |

<!-- page 645 -->
# Minneapolis Waterbodies

The origin of the name Minneapolis is described as a combination of the Dakota *Minnehaha*, translated as falling waters, and the ancient Greek *polis*, translated as city. This name, as well as the nickname “City of Lakes” suitably describe the landscape of the City, which includes the Mississippi River, four streams, and 17 waterbodies, as listed in Table 3.5 and shown in Figure 3.5. Waterbodies included in this table are those that receive stormwater runoff from a Minneapolis owned outfall. The definition of lake, wetland, and stream is based on information obtained from the MNDNR Lake Finder and MPCA Water Quality Dashboard. The tributary areas for each waterbody are shown in Figure 3.6. This section provides historical information and water quality assessments for those waterbodies that are within the municipal limits of the City. Descriptions of waterbodies that are outside of the City which receive runoff generated within the City are briefly described in a separate section.

<!-- page 646 -->
Table 3.5 – Waterbodies within the City of Minneapolis

| Type | Waterbody | DNR ID | Watershed Organization |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| River | Mississippi River | 07010206-805 [^p646-a] <br> 07010206-814 [^p646-b] | Mississippi Watershed Management Organization |
| Stream | Bassett Creek | 07010206-538 | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission |
| Stream | Minnehaha Creek | 07010206-539 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Stream | Ryan Creek | 07010206-536 | Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission |
| Stream | Shingle Creek | 07010206-506 | Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission |
| Lake | Birch Pond | 27065300 | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission |
| Lake | Brownie Lake | 27003800 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Cedar Lake | 27003900 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Cemetery Lake | 27001700 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Wetland | Diamond Lake | 27002200 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Wetland | Ewing Wetland | NA | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Wetland | Grass Lake | 27068100 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska | 27003100 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Lake Harriet | 27001600 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Lake Hiawatha | 27001800 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Lake Nokomis | 27001900 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Lake of the Isles | 27004000 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Loring Pond | 27006500 | Mississippi Watershed Management Organization |
| Lake | Powderhorn Lake | 27001400 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Lake | Ryan Lake | 27005800 | Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission |
| Lake | Sanctuary Pond | 27066500 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Shallow Lake | Spring Lake | 27065400 | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission |

[^p646-a]: Mississippi River ID for purposes of Impaired Waters changed from 07010206-509 by MPCA in 2016
[^p646-b]: Mississippi River ID for purposes of Impaired Water carried forward from 07010206-513, 07010206-501, 07010206-502, 07010206-503, 07010206-504, 07010206-505, and 07040001-531 to 07010206-814

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 647 -->
### Figure 3.5 – City of Minneapolis Waterbodies

<<FIGURE>>

#### City of Minneapolis
### Minneapolis Water Bodies

<!-- page 648 -->
### Figure 3.6 – City of Minneapolis Waterbodies Drainage Areas

<<FIGURE>>

#### Minneapolis Wards and Water Bodies Drainage Areas

| | | | | | | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | **Watersheds** | [ ] Crystal Lake | [ ] Lake Harriet | [ ] Loring Pond | [ ] Richfield Lake | [ ] Still water |
| — Major Roads | [ ] Bassett Creek | [ ] Diamond Lake | [ ] Lake Hiawatha | [ ] Minnehaha Creek | [ ] Ryan Lake | [ ] Wirth Lake |
| [ ] Ward Boundaries | [ ] Birch Pond | [ ] Grass Lake | [ ] Lake Nokomis | [ ] Mississippi River | [ ] Shingle Creek | |
| [ ] Water Bodies | [ ] Brownie Lake | [ ] Hart Lake | [ ] Lake of the Isles | [ ] Mother Lake | [ ] Silver Lake | |
| | [ ] Cedar Lake | [ ] Lake Calhoun | [ ] Legion Lake | [ ] Powderhorn Lake | [ ] Spring Lake | |

<!-- page 649 -->
# Mississippi River

The Mississippi River has historically been the City's source of commerce, recreation, and potable water. Approximately 12.2 miles of the Mississippi River, with a drainage area with Minneapolis of 20,300 acres, flows from northwest to southeast through the City. Hydrologically, the Mississippi River is the ultimate downstream receiving water for nearly all waterbodies in the City, with the exception of a few landlocked wetlands and ponds.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) has segmented the Mississippi River through the City into three segments:

* Coon Creek (in Anoka) to Upper Saint Anthony Falls Dam.
* Upper Saint Anthony Falls Dam to Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam.
* Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam to Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam).

The physical characteristics for each segment of the River are summarized in Table 3.6.

**Mississippi River at Lowry Avenue**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: CDM Smith*

<!-- page 650 -->
### Table 3.6 – Mississippi River Characteristics

| River/Stream | Mississippi River, Crow River to Upper Saint Anthony Falls Dam |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 07010206-805[^p650-a] |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 1C, 2B, 3C |
| Length within Minneapolis | 5.2 miles |
| Downstream waterbody | Mississippi River, Upper Saint Anthony Falls Dam to Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 6,309 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Mississippi Water Management Organization |
| **River/Stream** | **Mississippi River, Upper Saint Anthony Falls Dam to Lower St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam** |
| DNR ID# | 07010206-814[^p650-b] |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 |
| Length within Minneapolis | 0.6 miles |
| Downstream waterbody | Mississippi River, Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam to Lock and Dam #1 |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 112,969 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Mississippi Water Management Organization |
| **River/Stream** | **Mississippi River, Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam to Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam)** |
| DNR ID# | 07010206-814[^p650-b] |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 |
| Length within Minneapolis | 6.4 miles |
| Downstream waterbody | Mississippi River, Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam) to Lock and Dam #2 |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 1,035 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Mississippi Water Management Organization |

[^p650-a] *Mississippi River ID for purposes of Impaired Waters changed from 07010206-509 by MPCA in 2016*
[^p650-b] *Mississippi River ID for purposes of Impaired Water carried forward from 07010206-513, 07010206-501, 07010206-502, 07010206-503, 07010206-504, 07010206-505, and 07040001-531 to 07010206-814*

### Navigation

The City is situated at the upper reaches of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Mississippi River navigational system. The Saint Paul District of the USACE operates and maintains 12 locks and dams on the river between the Upper Saint Anthony Falls in downtown Minneapolis and Lock and Dam #10 in Guttenberg, Iowa. Each dam represents a critical step in the "stairway of water" that makes navigation possible between the City and Saint Louis. Figure 3.7 shows the locations of the locks and dams that are within the City. As of 2015, navigation on the Mississippi River is limited to the reach that is downstream of the Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. As described in the section below, titled United States Army Corps of Engineers Closure of Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock, the lock permanently ended operation as mandated by the U.S. Congress.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 651 -->
Figure 3.7 – Locks and Dams on the Mississippi River, City of Minneapolis

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 652 -->
The Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, shown in Figure 3.7 is located on the Mississippi River at river mile 854. The dam consists of a horseshoe dam with a chord dam downstream of the horseshoe and a concrete overflow spillway. The lock is 56 feet wide by 400 feet long. Lower Saint Anthony Falls Dam is located downstream of the Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam at river mile 853.9. This lower dam consists of a 275-foot long concrete spillway with four Tainter gates. The lock is also 56 feet wide by 400 feet long.

**Upper Saint Anthony Falls Dam, upstream of the Stone Arch Bridge**

<<FIGURE>>
*Credit: CDM Smith*

Both the upper and lower dams were constructed by the USACE and became operational in September 1963. The upper lock was closed in 2015 and the lower lock remains open and operates on an occasional schedule. Additional information on the closure is contained in the following subsection.

Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam) is located on the Mississippi River at river mile 847.9 in the City. It was constructed in 1917, with major reconstruction in 1929, 1932, and between 1978 and 1983.

### United States Army Corps of Engineers Closure of Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock
Due to concerns about the spread of invasive Asian carp, the 113[^th] Congress included a provision in the *Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014* (WRRDA) that permanently closed the Upper Saint Anthony Falls locks. Title II: Navigation – Subtitle A, Section 2010, Upper Mississippi River Protection contains this provision that closed the Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock effective June 9, 2015. The Lower Saint Anthony Falls Lock remains open and operates under reduced hours. The WRRDA does allow for the lock to be operational in emergency conditions, as necessary to mitigate flood damage.

Recreational boaters are encouraged to use a 1.5-mile portage that has been established by the MNDNR. The Mississippi River and Recreation Area Visitor Center at the Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock and Dam remains open for visitors between May and September of each year.

Efforts are underway to assess the environmental impacts of the closure, as well as the opportunities for redevelopment. Additional research on the impacts related to water quality, and fish, mussel, and macroinvertebrate communities in the river is being conducted by Minneapolis River Partnership in a project funded by the Minnesota Environmental Trust Fund. Recreational opportunities are under consideration by the MPRB, as described in Section 3.7.1.3 of the Upper River Master Plan.

<!-- page 653 -->
### United States Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Pool Plans

In 2004, the USACE Fish and Wildlife Work Group, a subgroup of the USACE Saint Paul District River Resources Forum[^p653-6], completed Environmental Pool Plans (EPP) for the Mississippi River Pools 1 through 10. The Pool Plans establish common habitat goals and objectives for the Upper Mississippi River and serve as a guide toward a sustainable ecosystem and identify a desired future habitat condition. The EPPs serve as a guide for individual agencies to carry out their respective missions and to seek funds to do so in a way that ensures environmental sustainability in a manner that maintains Congressionally-mandated navigation on the river.

The entire segment of the Mississippi River in the City is within Pool #1. This 18.6-mile pool is located between the Coon Rapids Dam (river mile 866.2) and Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam, river mile 847.6). The Fish and Wildlife Working Group (FWWG) had determined that the only viable use of Pool #1 is commercial navigation and recreational boating and, therefore, have not established environmental sustainability goals. Maintenance of navigation is Congressionally mandated and will continue to be the primary goal of this segment.

Initial discussions on updating the EPP to consider the changes related to closure of the Upper Saint Anthony Falls Lock, began with the FWWG in early 2015. The initial EPP updates reflect habitat restoration and enhancement projects, operation and maintenance (O&M) activities, refuge projects, and other agency restoration projects. As of April 2016, Pool #8 has been completed and will be used as a template for updating the other EPPs. The FWWG also began working on a Habitat Needs Assessment II in 2016. This assessment will be incorporated into the EPP revisions. Currently, the EPP revisions are being delayed until after this assessment is complete. It has not been determined if this EPP update will include revisions to Pool #1.

### Water Quality

In 2012, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) published Mississippi River Pools #1 through #8: Developing River, Pool, and Lake Pepin Eutrophication Criteria to reassess each pool of the Mississippi River in an effort to refine the eutrophication status for each pool and to establish water quality criteria that is specific for each pool. The report contains general conclusions of the quality of Pool #1 based on review of long-term data collected by Metropolitan Council and MPCA, as follows:

*   There is no significant overall trend in Total Phosphorus (TP) and Dissolved Ortho Phosphorus (DOP) through 2009, except that the TP and DOP for the period between 2005 and 2009 was lower than for the period between 1993 and 2009.

*   DOP is high as it enters the metropolitan area and declines in Pool #1, likely due to algal uptake.

[^p653-6]: River Resources Forum consists of representatives from State and Federal agencies within the jurisdiction of the Saint Paul District of the USACE. Agencies include the USACE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Coast Guard, National Park Service, MPCA, MNDNR, Iowa DNR, Wisconsin DNR, MnDOT, Iowa DOT, and Wisconsin DOT.

<!-- page 654 -->
* Chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) gradually increases through Pool #1. The levels of Chl-a in Pool #1 are strongly influenced by flow in the Mississippi River, which causes the levels to vary from season to season.

Concurrently, the MPCA assessed the turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) water quality standards and published their conclusions in the May 2011 report Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards Draft Technical Support Document for Total Suspended Solids (Turbidity). This report recommended that the turbidity criteria be eliminated and replaced by TSS standards, which are defined by river nutrient regions. The water quality standards for the Mississippi River segment through the City is now categorized as the Central River Nutrient Region. For this segment, the water quality standards were revised from 25 NTU[^p654-7] to 30 mg/l TSS.

The MPCA also published the results of intensive watershed monitoring in a report titled Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report (2013). The report draws conclusions based on data collection since 2010 on the pollution of the Mississippi River. Because of increased development, the waterbodies within the watershed continue to experience stress from pollutants such as nutrients, bacteria, and suspended solids.

Site specific water quality standards developed by the MPCA for the Mississippi River became effective on August 11, 2014 and are summarized in Table 3.7.

**Table 3.7 – Mississippi River Water Quality Standards, Fridley to Ford Dam**

| Water Quality Indicator | Water Quality Standard | Average Water Quality Concentration ª | Monitoring Dates |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Chl-a (µg/l) | 35 | 46 | 1993 to 2009 |
| TP (µg/l) | 100 | 97 | 1993 to 2009 |
| TSS (mg/l) | 30 | 25 | unavailable |
*ª Source: Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report (2013)*

Many other agencies are involved in monitoring of the Mississippi River, as follows:

* Metropolitan Council collects samples at Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam) and analyzes on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis, based on the parameter under analysis. Information is available from the Metropolitan Council.

* United States Geological Survey (USGS) records the depth of water of the Mississippi River at the Minneapolis Water Treatment Plant, located in Fridley.

* MWMO collects grab samples one to two times each month at eight sites on the Mississippi River, all of which are in the City of Minneapolis. Results are summarized and published in the MWMO Annual Monitoring Reports.

***

[^p654-7]: Nephelometric turbidity units.

<!-- page 655 -->
* USACE maintains data on water depth, flow rates, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, and ice depth at each of the three lock and dams in the City of Minneapolis. Instantaneous and long-term data for each site is available from the USACE, Saint Paul District Water Control Center.

Summaries of reports and monitoring dates are available at the website for each organization.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for the three segments of the Mississippi River (see Table 3.5), as summarized in Table 3.8.

### Table 3.8 – Mississippi River Impaired Waters Summary

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/1998 (3 of 3 segments) <br> Aquatic Consumption/PCB in Fish Tissue/1998 (2 of 3 segments) <br> Aquatic Life/Nutrient and Eutrophication/2016 (1 of 3 segments) [^p655-a] <br> Aquatic Recreation/Fecal Coliform (Bacteria)/2002 (3 of 3 segments) |
| TMDL Status | Fecal Coliform (Bacteria): metro-wide TMDL approved in 2014 <br> Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2008 <br> Nutrient and Eutrophication: study underway <br> PCB in Fish Tissue: not started |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Fecal Coliform (Bacteria): no action for Mississippi River segments, MPCA will review after 2020 <br> Mercury in Fish Tissue: mercury impairment is not stormwater related |

[^p655-a] *Crow River to Upper Saint Anthony Falls segment (07010206-805), only*

The Mississippi River segment through the City is tributary to the downstream segment of the Mississippi River that has been identified with water quality impairments related to excess Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The South Metro Mississippi River, Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam) to Lock and Dam #4 TSS total maximum daily load (TMDL) report was approved by the EPA on April 26, 2016. This TMDL study concludes that municipalities upstream of Lock and Dam #1, with one exception that does not include the City, are not required to implement additional actions to reduce the load of TSS related to stormwater discharges.

The City, as a municipality with a NPDES stormwater permit, could be required to comply with any identified reductions in stormwater pollutant loads to comply with future Mississippi River TMDL implementation plans that are downstream of the City. The City will continue to track the progress of these, and future, TMDL activities to identify changes in compliance requirements.

### Mississippi River Water Quality Improvement Projects
The MPRB has managed a Capital Improvement Program that has included several projects along the Mississippi River that have or will improve the shoreline of the Mississippi River. Most of these projects are improvements to parklands, recreation areas, trails, and parkways.

The Above the Falls Master Plan was completed by the MPRB in 1999 as a master plan for the entire riverfront between Plymouth Avenue North and 42nd Avenue North. The 1999 plan includes near-term and long-term priorities that have resulted in the completion of projects that have included shoreline and other riverfront improvements:

* Completed Projects

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 656 -->
* Gluek Park improvements included soil remediation, shoreline restoration, and areas of native plantings.

* Boom Island Park trail improvements included shoreline improvements and rehabilitation of the marina.

* Orvin “Ole” Olsen Park acquisition and landscaping.

■ Active Projects

* Scherer Brothers park development and shoreline improvements includes restoration of Hall Island.

* Upper Harbor Terminal Park improvements are under development.

■ Long-Term Projects

* Northside Wetlands Park along the riverfront between Lowry Avenue and 35^th Avenue North.

* Development of Northeast riverfront parks through land acquisition.

Other projects that include stabilization or improvements to the Mississippi River shoreline, which are downstream of the Above the Falls segment of the Mississippi River, include:

■ Water Works is a project to improve the downtown riverfront near Portland Avenue. Specific components under development will include shoreline improvements.

■ West River Parkway Slope Repair was an emergency project to repair a severely eroded section of the Mississippi River Bluff below Amplatz Children’s Hospital, completed in 2017.

### Streams

Three tributaries to the Mississippi River (Bassett Creek, Minnehaha Creek, and Shingle Creek) originate west of the City and flow through the City to the Mississippi River. A fourth stream, Ryan Creek, is tributary to Shingle Creek. These streams are shown in Figure 3.5.

Bassett Creek is a 12-mile stream that meanders eastward from Medicine Lake through Plymouth and Golden Valley and then through MPRB’s Theodore Wirth Park. Near Girard Avenue North in the City of Minneapolis, Bassett Creek flows into a tunnel system that discharges to the Mississippi River downstream of Saint Anthony Falls between the upper and lower dams.

Minnehaha Creek originates at the outlet of Lake Minnetonka (Gray’s Bay Dam) located in Minnetonka. The Creek flows 22 miles through the cities of Minnetonka, Hopkins, Saint Louis Park, Edina, and Minneapolis, and ends at the confluence with the Mississippi River upstream of Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam).

The main stem of Shingle Creek begins in Brooklyn Park in northwestern Hennepin County and flows southeast to its confluence with the Mississippi River through the far northern neighborhoods of the City of Minneapolis, immediately upstream of the Camden Bridge. The main stem is approximately 11

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 657 -->
miles long and drops approximately 66 feet from its source to its mouth. Ryan Creek originates at Ryan Lake and discharges to Shingle Creek at approximately Humboldt Avenue North.

Over the years, these streams have been altered to improve drainage, enhance recreation, facilitate transportation, and support development, which is described in detail in the sections below.

### Bassett Creek
Bassett Creek is in the mid-section of the City, as shown on Figure 3.5. Bassett Creek originates at Medicine Lake in Plymouth and enters the City of Minneapolis at TH-55. The BCWMC classifies Bassett Creek as a priority waterbody for management purposes.

Originally, Bassett Creek discharged to the Mississippi River at the mouth of the Creek located south of Plymouth Avenue. Construction in the 1980s diverted the lower section of Bassett Creek into a deep tunnel system that discharges to the Mississippi River below Saint Anthony Falls. The Old Bassett Creek Tunnel continues to take local flow which discharge to the Mississippi River at the mouth of original Bassett Creek. This tunnel is still operated and maintained by the City. The physical characteristics of Bassett Creek are summarized in Table 3.9.

**Bassett Creek at Wirth Park**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: CDM Smith*

#### Table 3.9 – Bassett Creek Characteristics
| River/Stream | Bassett Creek, Main Stem |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 07010206-538 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Length within Minneapolis | 3.1 [^p657-a], [^p657-b] |
| Downstream waterbody | Mississippi River, Coon Creek to Upper Saint Anthony Falls Dam |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 1,621 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission |

[^p657-a]: Length of open watercourse, remainder is enclosed in storm pipe
[^p657-b]: Includes length through MPRB Theodore Wirth Park

The property along the shoreline is owned by the MPRB between Theodore Wirth Park and Cedar Lake Road. The remainder of the shoreland is in public ownership by the Minneapolis Public Works Department, the Minneapolis School Board, and the Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED).

Development has drastically altered Bassett Creek throughout the history of the City. Meanders were straightened, wetlands were filled, and trees were cut to accommodate development. Early development, which consisted mostly of sawmills and railroads, led to the influx of industrial and

<!-- page 658 -->
commercial development along Bassett Creek. In the late 19<sup>th</sup> Century, Bassett Creek was channelized and the last few miles diverted into a buried culvert that discharged into the Mississippi River immediately south of the Plymouth Avenue Bridge and above Saint Anthony Falls.

Bassett Creek splits into two channels immediately upstream of Trunk Highway 55 located at the border between the City of Minneapolis and Golden Valley, as shown in Figure 3.8. What is now the main channel contains a concrete weir structure that was constructed by the USACE as a part of the larger 1990 Bassett Creek Flood Control Project. The secondary channel, which was the primary channel until rerouted for widening of Trunk Highway 55 in the 1940s, now serves as an infrequent overflow channel. This secondary channel is subject to heavy sedimentation and collection of trash and debris. Occasionally, the City has cleaned out the channel to maintain its hydraulic function, most recently in 2015. Both channels are identified as Public Waters on the MNDNR Public Waters Inventory Map.

<!-- page 659 -->
Figure 3.8 — Bassett Creek Culverts at Trunk Highway 55

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 660 -->
In 1969, the communities of Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, Minnetonka, Minneapolis, New Hope, Robbinsdale, Plymouth, and Saint Louis Park formed the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission. In 1982, in accordance with the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission became the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Its mission is to control floods and to maintain and enhance the quality of the surface and ground water resources in the 40-square-mile watershed.

In the 1970s, the original Bassett Creek tunnel required extensive maintenance, could no longer accommodate increased drainage from upstream, and was a contributing factor to upstream flooding in the City. From 1987 to 1996, the USACE, in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), MNDNR, the BCWMC, and the BCWMC member cities, constructed $40 million of flood mitigation improvements. The project effectively controlled floods in portions of Golden Valley, Plymouth, Minneapolis, and Crystal, and reduced flood elevations along the Bassett Creek corridor by up to 4.5 feet in the City of Minneapolis. The principal feature of the BCWMC Flood Control Project within the City is the 1.7-mile tunnel through downtown Minneapolis, built in three phases (1979, 1990, and 1992) for a total project cost of $28 million. Base flow from Bassett Creek was diverted to this new culvert/tunnel. The original tunnel remained in place to convey local runoff and to provide an overflow during flood conditions. The deep tunnel ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River downstream of Saint Anthony Falls. The alignments of these culverts and tunnels are shown in Figure 3.9.

<!-- page 661 -->
Figure 3.9 – Original and New Bassett Creek Alignment

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 662 -->
The joint and cooperative agreements that resulted from the BCWMC Flood Control Project, include obligations for the BCWMC and the member cities in regard to developments or other modifications that affect peak flows or hydraulic capacity in both the new and old tunnels. Additionally, the BCWMC has adopted policies that details the responsibilities and procedures for inspection and maintenance of the flood control structures. This is described in greater detail in Section 4, subsection Stormwater Management Sites Inspection and Maintenance.

Stream monitoring to collect water quality and quantity data is performed in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council and BCWMC as part of the Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP). The WOMP station on Bassett Creek is located at Irving Avenue, approximately ¼-mile upstream of where Bassett Creek enters the new tunnel. Data collected includes continuous measurements of stream flow, temperature, and conductivity, as well as monthly base flow grab samples and storm event composite samples. This information is used to assess current stream conditions, develop target pollutant loads, and provide continued monitoring after BMPs are completed in the watershed. BCWMC also completes biotic (invertebrate) monitoring of streams on a regular basis. Monitoring for the presence of biological indicator organisms provides evidence of the water quality of Bassett Creek. The types of organisms on the stream bottom depend on the available habitat; the habitat quality is affected by the water quality.

In 2014, the Metropolitan Council published a comprehensive assessment of the water quality of the streams it monitors[^p662-8]. Bassett Creek conclusions from this assessment include:

*   Bassett Creek is vulnerable to loss of flows caused by excessive groundwater withdrawal. Additional evaluation is required to demonstrate whether there is an actual relationship between Bassett Creek flows and groundwater withdrawals.
*   There is an increase in peak flows due to summer rainfall and winter snowmelt.
*   TSS concentrations have decreased by 72 percent between the years of 2000 and 2013. Current concentrations are higher than in the Mississippi River, but lower than other metropolitan area highly urbanized streams.
*   TP concentrations have decreased since 2000, with the greatest reduction of 17 percent in the 5-year period between 2008 and 2012. The concentration of TP is slightly higher than the Mississippi River, but lower than other urbanized metropolitan area streams.
*   Nitrate (NO₃) concentrations decreased by 27 percent between the years 2008 and 2012. The concentration is lower than the Mississippi River and other urbanized metropolitan area streams.
*   Chloride (Cl) concentrations are among the highest of streams monitored by Metropolitan Council.

[^p662-8]: *Comprehensive Water Quality Assessment of Select Metropolitan Area Streams*. St. Paul: Metropolitan Council, 2014

<!-- page 663 -->
The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Bassett Creek, as summarized in Table 3.10.

#### Table 3.10 – Bassett Creek Impaired Waters Summary
| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Life/Chloride/2010<br>Aquatic Life/Fishes Bioassessments/2004<br>Aquatic Recreation/Fecal Coliform (Bacteria)/2008 |
| TMDL Status | Chloride: metropolitan-wide TMDL approved in 2016<br>Fishes Bioassessments: not started<br>Fecal Coliform (Bacteria): Upper Mississippi TMDL approved in 2014 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended<br>Fecal Coliform (Bacteria): actions recommended |

The Main Stem of Bassett Creek was included in the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL and Protection Plan completed by the MPCA in 2014. The Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan, March 2016, establishes that a target goal of 79 percent reduction of bacteria load is needed to meet the Waste Load Allocation (WLA) established in the 2014 report. High priority actions have been recommended; however, these actions have not been assigned to a specific organization for implementation:

* Identify and map potential bacteria hot spots, including dog parks.
* Update and enforce pet waste ordinances.
* Conduct public outreach.
* Install filtration and biofiltration, where feasible.
* Direct runoff flows to infiltration and treatment basins or away from impervious surfaces.
* Develop, implement, and enforce Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE).

The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Total Maximum Daily Load Study was approved by the MPCA on February 26, 2016 and by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 6, 2016. All waterbodies assessed in this study, including Bassett Creek, were found to have concentrations of chloride that exceed the State’s water quality standards. Over a 10-year monitoring period, the chloride concentration in Bassett Creek exceeded the standard of 230 mg/L on a total of 321 days. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan, completed in February 2016, requires that all municipalities undertake an assessment of winter maintenance practices and create a plan to reduce winter salt use. Specific reductions in chloride loads have been calculated for each stream; however, there has not been a specific load reduction assigned to individual MS4s.

Since 2006, one stream restoration project has been completed along the Golden Valley segment of Bassett Creek located within Theodore Wirth Park. The Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project, completed in 2015, repaired nine areas of eroded stream bank between Golden Valley Road and the location where Bassett Creek flows into Minneapolis. The 2,100 feet of stabilized stream bank is

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 664 -->
estimated to reduce the phosphorus loads by 60 pounds per year and the TSS loads by 105,000 pounds per year. The project was funded by the BCWMC and a grant from the Clean Water Fund. Construction was managed by the MPRB.

The next planned phase of streambank stabilization along Bassett Creek within the City of Minneapolis and Theodore Wirth Park are focused on erosion repair and channel restoration. The Bassett Creek Main Stem Erosion Repair Project. is located between Fruen Mill and Dupont Avenue North. A feasibility study was completed in 2016 and construction is planned for 2018. The Restoration of Historic Bassett Creek Channel at Highway 55 is recommended to mitigate problems associated with extreme sedimentation and collection of trash and debris. Additional improvements are anticipated to be completed by the Blue Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) project. The BCWMC has included a project as a placeholder if the LRT project does not fully mitigate the problems. Improvements are planned for 2022.

### Minnehaha Creek

Minnehaha Creek is in south Minneapolis, as denoted on Figure 3.5. Minnehaha Creek originates at Gray's Bay Dam on Lake Minnetonka. Near the end of the Creek in Minneapolis is Minnehaha Falls, a popular and scenic area managed by the MPRB. The physical characteristics of Minnehaha Creek are summarized in Table 3.11.

#### Table 3.11 – Minnehaha Creek Characteristics

| River/Stream | Minnehaha Creek |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 0701206-539 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Length within Minneapolis | 7.7 miles |
| Downstream waterbody | Mississippi River, Upper Saint Anthony Falls to Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam) |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 3,347 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

The property along the entire shoreline of Minnehaha Creek within the City is owned and managed by the MPRB. This parkland extends to several lakes that flow into Minnehaha Creek, primarily the Chain of Lakes (Brownie, Isles, Cedar, Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, Harriet), Lake Nokomis, and Lake Hiawatha. The MPRB and the MCWD actively manage Minnehaha Creek and its tributary lakes.

Minnehaha Creek monitoring is conducted by the Metropolitan Council, USGS, and the MCWD at multiple sites along Minnehaha Creek. Metropolitan Council monitors flow and collects water samples at a site at 32<sup>nd</sup> Avenue. MCWD monitors the Creek for dissolved oxygen, flow, water level, nutrients, suspended solids, chloride, algal abundance, and *E. coli* at three sites along the Creek in Minneapolis: 21<sup>st</sup> Avenue South (canoe landing at Lake Nokomis weir), 28<sup>th</sup> Avenue South, and Hiawatha Avenue. The MWCD and USGS cooperate to monitor the flows and water levels at Hiawatha Avenue. Real time data is available on the USGS National Water Information System: Web Interface. for Station 05289200.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 665 -->
Additionally, the MCWD conducted site specific studies in the City, as follows:

**Minnehaha Falls in Winter**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

*   [Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Pollutant Loading Study](https://www.minnehahacreek.org) (HHPLS) began in 2001 and resulted in a report published in 2003. The study intended to understand the characteristics of the watershed, quantify water movement, incorporate public input, and form management programs. The overall goal of the study was to improve and maintain the natural resources of the MCWD.

*   [Minnehaha Creek Base Flow Study](https://www.minnehahacreek.org) is a cooperative study completed by MCWD, MPRB, MWMO, and the University of Minnesota to understand the relationship between base flows in Minnehaha Creek and the groundwater. The study concluded that:

    *   Surface waters are the primary source of flow in Minnehaha Creek.
    *   Water from the Creek is infiltrated into the groundwater.
    *   Focused stormwater infiltration can effectively augment groundwater flows.
    *   Improved creek baseflow is possible by targeted infiltration of stormwater in the Creek segment below Lake Harriet.

*   [Zebra Mussel Monitoring.](https://www.minnehahacreek.org) is an assessment that looks for the presence of Zebra Mussels in Minnehaha Creek. An initial conclusion is that although Zebra Mussels are present in Lake Minnetonka, those that move to Minnehaha Creek experience die-off each year. MPRB Management of Zebra Mussels in Minnehaha Creek and other waterbodies is described in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

*   [Lake Hiawatha and Minnehaha Creek Fish Survey](https://www.minnehahacreek.org) was conducted in 2009 in four sites along Minnehaha Creek, which included Lake Hiawatha in Minneapolis. This survey concluded that bullheads, carp, and dogfish (which are primarily low-oxygen tolerant fish) probably have an adverse effect on the water quality in Lake Hiawatha.

*   [Ecosystem Evaluation Program (E-Grade)](https://www.minnehahacreek.org) is under development by the MCWD. The E-Grade Program is intended to provide a holistic view of the health of the entire watershed through the assessment of a variety of ecosystems: deep and shallow lakes, streams, wetlands, land use, groundwater, and hydrology. These ecosystems will be evaluated for their performance in flood

<!-- page 666 -->
control, biodiversity, habitat diversity, recreation, potable water supply, and nutrient cycling to determine the overall health of the watershed. All subwatersheds will be examined on a 10-year cycle with intensive monitoring and data collection over three-year periods.

*   [Minnehaha Creek Visioning Partnership Final Report](http://example.com) was jointly conducted by the USACE and the MCWD in 2005. This report created recommendations for future creek management. Erosion control and streambank stabilization were the highest priorities for the reach downstream of the Browndale Dam that includes the entire segment of Minnehaha Creek through the City. The report recommended the MCWD consider bioengineered stabilization techniques over hard armoring where possible, and that habitat improvement be focused on the management of riparian vegetation and retention of large woody debris rather than instream habitat management. The report also recommended that water quality be improved through the reduction of peak stormwater flows, pretreatment of discharges, application of Best Management Practices (BMPs), good housekeeping practices in the watershed, and repair of streambank erosion.

*   Minnehaha Creek Bacterial Source Identification Study is a 2-phase project that began in 2016 to address a TMDL that has been established for the Creek due to elevated levels of *E. coli*. In response to the TMDL, the City initiated this bacterial source identification study to identify the sources of *E. coli* in the Creek and the surrounding watershed. A multiple lines of evidence approach was used to identify *E. coli* sources, which included baseline monitoring, sanitary surveys, groundwater characterization, bacterial regrowth assessments, and a series of special studies. A suite of tools was used for the studies, which included traditional culture techniques, genetic molecular markers, and microbial community analysis. The final report is expected to be completed in 2018 at which point Best Management practices to reduce *E. coli* concentrations in the Creek will be evaluated by the City.

In 2014, the Metropolitan Council published a comprehensive assessment of the water quality of the streams it monitors[^p666-9]. Minnehaha Creek conclusions from this assessment include:

*   The primary source of water in Minnehaha Creek is from Lake Minnetonka, and the secondary source of water is direct stormwater runoff, which creates a sudden significant increase of flow.

*   The section through Edina and Minneapolis is defined as "losing flows," meaning that water in the Creek flows into the groundwater.

*   Minnehaha Creek is located at groundwater levels, which causes Creek flows to be vulnerable to groundwater pumping.

*   Water quality of Minnehaha Creek is influenced by water releases from Lake Minnetonka and urban stormwater runoff.

[^p666-9]: *Comprehensive Water Quality Assessment of Select Metropolitan Area Streams*. St. Paul: Metropolitan Council, 2014

<!-- page 667 -->
* TSS concentrations are lower than found in the Mississippi River.

* Nutrient concentrations are lower than found in the Mississippi River.

* Nutrient concentrations in the Creek have shown a long-term decline.

* Chloride loads and concentrations are high, as seen in highly developed urbanized watersheds.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Minnehaha Creek, as summarized in Table 3.12.

#### Table 3.12 – Minnehaha Creek Impaired Waters Summary
| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Life/Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments/2014<br>Aquatic Life/Chloride/2008<br>Aquatic Life/Dissolved Oxygen/2010<br>Aquatic Life/Fishes Bioassessments/2004<br>Aquatic Recreation/Fecal Coliform (Bacteria)/2008 |
| TMDL Status | Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments: not started<br>Chloride: metropolitan-wide TMDL approved in 2016<br>Dissolved Oxygen: not started<br>Fishes Bioassessments: not started<br>Fecal Coliform (Bacteria): approved in 2014 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended<br>Fecal Coliform (Bacteria): actions recommended |

The Minnehaha Creek 5 Bacteria/Lake Hiawatha Nutrients TMDL plan was approved by the EPA on February 24, 2014. With respect to Minnehaha Creek, the TMDL study established an *E. coli*[^p667-10] standard of 1,260 count/mL, and a geometric mean of 126 count/mL. Monitoring data shows that the highest number of exceedances of these standards occurs in the section of Minnehaha Creek that is upstream of Lake Hiawatha with the highest frequency of exceedances found at Chicago Avenue South. The Implementation Activities section of the report generally recommends that MS4s consider these approaches:

* Pet waste management and disposal ordinances.

* Illicit discharge ordinances and IDDE programs.

* Street sweeping, storm drain/catch basin cleaning, and pipe rehabilitation.

* Installation of volume control/infiltration/filtration BMPs.

The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Total Maximum Daily Load Study was approved by the MPCA on February 26, 2016 and by the EPA on June 6. 2016. All waterbodies assed in this study were found to

***

[^p667-10]: Conversion from Fecal Coliform to *E. Coli* is based on Bacteria TMDL Protocols and Supplemental Requirements, 2007, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

<!-- page 668 -->
have concentrations of chloride that exceed the State’s water quality standards. Over a 10-year monitoring period, the chloride concentration in Minnehaha Creek exceeded the standard of 230 mg/L on a total of 415 days. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan, completed in February 2016, requires that all municipalities undertake an assessment of winter maintenance practices and create a plan to make reductions in winter salt use. Specific reductions in chloride loads have been calculated for each stream; however, there has not been a specific load reduction assigned to individual MS4s.

TMDL studies for Fishes Bioassessments, Dissolved Oxygen, and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments have not started.

Multiple streambank and in-stream projects along the segment of Minnehaha Creek within the City have been completed. The Minnehaha Falls and Glen Restoration, completed in 2011, stabilized the streambanks and bluffs, installed rock vanes in the Creek, managed invasive vegetation, constructed walkways and trails, protected historic and cultural resources, and added stormwater management features. The project was completed by the MCWD in cooperation with MPRB, Minneapolis Veterans Home, State of Minnesota, and the USACE. In 1997, the Standish-Ericsson Neighborhood Association (SENA) Wetland was constructed as a vegetative buffer to trap debris and nutrients prior to discharge to Minnehaha Creek. The Minnehaha Creek Channel Modifications/Erosion Management Plan, completed in 1998, consisted of a hydrological model of the lower basin of MCWD under severe runoff conditions. Based on this model, a channel modifications plan was produced. In 2001, the Minnehaha Creek Trail Corridor project consisted of shoreline erosion repairs, construction of channel meander and an adjacent wetland, and the placement of vortex treatment structures upstream of the wetland located at Cedar Avenue.

The wettest 6 months (January 1 through June 30) on record in the Twin Cities occurred in 2014, with June 19[^th] being the sixth wettest day ever recorded in the area. Lake Minnetonka, at the headwaters of Minnehaha Creek, topped its previous record for high water by more than seven inches. This extreme precipitation also caused Minnehaha Creek flows to be the greatest on record, as recorded by the MCWD. The record water levels and flows led to more than $1 million worth of damages. Damage from flooding was widespread and included slope failures, shoreline erosion, damaged culverts, and flooded homes. The City, the MPRB, and the MCWD worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to develop plans to fix 11 damaged sites along Minnehaha Creek within MPRB property.

### Ryan Creek

The MNDNR considers Ryan Creek as an altered natural watercourse. Ryan Creek originates at Twin Lake in Robbinsdale. The segment within Minneapolis begins at Ryan Lake and discharges to Shingle Creek at 49[^th] Avenue North, as shown on Figure 3.10. The full length of the Creek is approximately 1.0 miles, of which 0.75 miles is within a storm drain and 0.25 miles is an open watercourse located entirely on private property. The physical characteristics of Ryan Creek are summarized in Table 3.13.

<!-- page 669 -->
### Table 3.13 – Ryan Creek Characteristics

| River/Stream | Ryan Creek |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 07010206-536 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Length within Minneapolis | 0.25 miles[^p669-a] |
| Downstream waterbody | Shingle Creek at 49ᵗʰ Avenue North |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | Acreage included in Shingle Creek watershed area |
| Watershed Management Organization | Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission |

[^p669-a] *Length of open watercourse, remainder is enclosed in storm drain*

Ryan Creek has not been monitored, therefore there is no water quality data. The Creek is not listed on the MPCA Impaired Waters List and there are no planned improvements.

### Figure 3.10 – Ryan Creek

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 670 -->
### Shingle Creek

Shingle Creek is located in north Minneapolis, as denoted on Figure 3.5. Shingle Creek originates in Maple Grove at Eagle Lake and discharges to the Mississippi River immediately upstream of 42[^nd] Avenue North. The physical characteristics of Shingle Creek are summarized in Table 3.14.

**Table 3.14 – Shingle Creek Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Shingle Creek |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 07010206-506 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Length within Minneapolis | 2.2 miles |
| Downstream waterbody | Mississippi River, Coon Creek to Upper Saint Anthony Falls |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 1,458 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission |

The property along the shoreline of the entire length of Shingle Creek in the City is owned and managed by the MPRB.

There are two monitoring sites on Shingle Creek within the City:

*   An outlet monitoring site maintained by the SCWMC is located on Shingle Creek upstream of 45[^th] Avenue North. Stream stage is continuously recorded. Grab samples are taken bi-weekly and analyzed for TP, ortho-phosphorus, TSS, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), nitrate, and chloride. Additionally, there are four composite samples taken each year. The site has been monitored since 1997, although the parameters analyzed have changed over time. Annual results are available from the SCWMC.
*   The second site is on Shingle Creek at Queen Avenue near the border between Minneapolis and the Brooklyn Center. The site is maintained by the USGS as part of their National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Real-time data for flow, stream depth, temperature, and specific conductivity is collected and available at the USGS Water Resources web interface for site USGS 05288105. The SCWMC collects and analyzes grab and composite samples at this site concurrent with the 45[^th] Avenue North monitoring site.

**Webber Falls on Shingle Creek at Lyndale Avenue North**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Shingle Creek, as summarized in Table 3.15.

<!-- page 671 -->
**Table 3.15 – Shingle Creek Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Life/Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments/2006<br>Aquatic Life/Chloride/1998<br>Aquatic Life/Dissolved Oxygen/2004<br>Aquatic Recreation/Escherichia coli (Bacteria)/2014 |
| TMDL Status | Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments: approved in 2011<br>Chloride: approved in 2007<br>Dissolved Oxygen: approved in 2011<br>Escherichia coli (Bacteria): metropolitan wide TMDL approved in 2014 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments/Dissolved Oxygen: implement in-stream improvements<br>Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended<br>Escherichia coli (Bacteria): actions recommended |

The Shingle Creek and Bass Creek Biota and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL report was approved by the EPA on November 4, 2011. This study identified that the low oxygen of Shingle Creek is caused by a low level of oxygen discharged from the creek’s headwaters, excessive uptake of oxygen by the sediment in the wider sections of the creek, and the lack of habitat along the streambanks. The subsequent Shingle and Bass Creeks Biota and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Implementation Plan was completed in January 2012. Recommendations for the City segment of Shingle Creek between Queen Avenue North and the Mississippi River include:

* Stabilization of the shoreline by select tree removal, shoreline vegetation planting, and buffer establishment.
* Installation of in-stream habitat features such as root wads, tree pins, and riffles.
* Narrow the channel and installation of riffles to improve aeration.
* Evaluation of the benefits of removal of the concrete structure at Webber Park and I-94.
* Creation of a fish passage around the concrete Webber Falls structure.
* BMP retrofits.
* Increase volume of stormwater infiltration.
* Education and outreach.

The Implementation Plan assigns the responsibility for these projects jointly to the City and the SCWMC. In accordance with the 2018 NPDES Integrated Permit, local responsibilities for TMDL compliance are jointly assigned to the City and the MPRB. The MPRB has the primary responsibility to implement all capital projects recommended for Shingle Creek. The City will work cooperatively with the MPRB on all TMDL projects and will negotiate cooperative funding and project management responsibilities on a project-by-project basis.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 672 -->
The Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Report and the Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Implementation Plan were developed before the metropolitan-wide chloride TMDL that included the Bassett Creek and Minnehaha Creek watersheds. This TMDL Report estimated that a reduction of 71 percent of chloride loads is necessary to achieve water quality standards. The primary source of chloride (82 percent) is estimated to be from winter road maintenance with the remaining sources from private commercial use, salt storage facilities, groundwater, and residential use. Recommended actions include:

* Retrofit equipment to updated technology, such as temperature sensors to adjust salt application rates, pre-wetting equipment, and anti-icing capabilities.
* Cover all road salt stockpiles and store on impervious surfaces.
* Train operators.
* Stockpile cleared snow away from sensitive areas.
* Continue to research technologies and materials.

Shingle Creek was included in the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL and Protection Plan completed by the MPCA in 2014. The Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan, March 2016, establishes that a target goal of 69 percent reduction of bacteria load is needed to meet the WLA established in the 2014 report. High priority actions have been recommended; however, these actions have not been assigned to a specific organization for implementation:

* Identify and map potential bacteria hot spots, including dog parks.
* Update and enforce pet waste ordinances.
* Conduct public outreach.
* Install filtration and biofiltration, where feasible.
* Direct runoff flows to infiltration and treatment basins or away from impervious surfaces.
* Develop, implement, and enforce IDDE discharges.

**Shingle Creek Biochar Box**

<<FIGURE>>

Credit: Minneapolis Public Works

The SCWMC has installed two experimental water quality projects along Shingle Creek on MPRB property. The first is an off-line filter bed at the Webber Park falls that treats Shingle Creek flows. The project was funded by a Section 319 grant and SCWMC levy; no City match was required. The filter bed was installed in the Fall of 2016. The second is an iron- and biochar-enhanced sand filter pond retrofit as part of the biochar grant project in a pond at Creekview Park, just north of 49^th

<!-- page 673 -->
Avenue North and Humboldt Avenue North. This was installed in late Spring 2017. Next steps for both projects include monitoring inflow, outflow, and ambient water quality to assess effectiveness of the filters. The purpose of these installations is to test the efficacy of these filters at removing E. coli bacteria and dissolved phosphorus from stormwater runoff and from direct streamflow.

## Lakes and Wetlands
Lakes and wetlands described in this WRMP are those which are listed on the MNDNR’s Public Waters Inventory (PWI), as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.201, and/or receive discharges of Minneapolis stormwater runoff. Seventeen (17) lakes and wetlands receiving stormwater runoff from the City’s drainage system exist partially or wholly within the City, as shown in Figure 3.5. Most of these lakes are integrated into the parks and are the focus of the City’s park system. Table 3.16 is a complete list of Minneapolis lakes inventoried in this WRMP.

**Table 3.16 – City of Minneapolis Lakes**

| Minneapolis Lakes Inventoried in this WRMP | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Birch Pond | Brownie Lake | Cedar Lake |
| Cemetery Lake | Diamond Lake [^p673-a] | Ewing Wetland [^p673-a] |
| Grass Lake [^p673-a] | Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska | Lake Harriet |
| Lake Hiawatha | Lake Nokomis | Lake of the Isles |
| Loring Pond | Powderhorn Lake | Ryan Lake |
| Sanctuary Pond | Spring Lake [^p673-b] | - |

[^p673-a] Categorized as a wetland by MPCA, MNDNR, or other.
[^p673-b] Categorized as shallow lake by MPCA.

### Birch Pond
The physical characteristics of Birch Pond are summarized in Table 3.17.

**Table 3.17 – Birch Pond Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Birch Pond |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27065300 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Landlocked |
| Surface Area | 2.5 acres |
| Depth – mean | N/A |
| Depth – maximum | N/A |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 39 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission |

Birch Pond, surrounded by hills and mature trees, is a landlocked pond located in Theodore Wirth Park within the City of Minneapolis, north of Interstate 394 and south of Wirth Lake. The pond receives runoff from the southbound portion of Wirth Parkway. Birch Pond is managed by the MPRB.

<!-- page 674 -->
The pond was acquired with the initial 1890 acquisition of 64 acres of Theodore Wirth Park. In 1893, the park board allowed the State Fish Commission to use the pond as a fish hatchery for about 25 years. In 1910, it was renamed after the birch trees that surround the pond.

Prior to the 1990s, water was pumped from the Mississippi River into Bassett Creek and then from Bassett Creek into Birch Pond to supplement water levels in the Chain of Lakes, as further described in the Brownie Lake section. This was accomplished by pumps that moved water from Birch Pond to Brownie Lake. This practice was discontinued in the 1990s to prevent the movement of invasive species into Bassett Creek and Birch Pond. Remnants of the previous conveyance system is located on the east side of the pond.

Bird watching is the main recreational activity at the pond. No public boat access or fishing docks are present.

Buckthorn, an invasive plant species, is managed around Birch Pond as part of a larger effort to prevent buckthorn infestation of the adjacent Eloise Butler Wildflower Garden. In 2014, the MPRB received an Outdoor Heritage Grant from the State of Minnesota to manage invasive vegetation, including buckthorn, in upland and wetland areas of Theodore Wirth Park. Purple loosestrife, an invasive wetland plant, is controlled, as needed, by biocontrol (introduction of leaf-eating beetles). Additional information on efforts to control loosestrife is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPRB monitors the ice conditions of Birch Pond. Birch Pond has not been monitored or evaluated for impairments due to its size.

### Brownie Lake

The physical characteristics of Brownie Lake are summarized in Table 3.18.

**Table 3.18 – Brownie Lake Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Brownie Lake |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27003800 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Cedar Lake |
| Surface Area | 9 acres |
| Depth – mean | 22 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 47 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 94 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Brownie Lake is located immediately south of Interstate 394 and east of Highway 100. It is the uppermost lake in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, which also includes Cedar Lake, Lake of the Isles, Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, and Lake Harriet (from upstream to downstream). The majority of the drainage area is from outside of Minneapolis, which includes residential and commercial areas of Saint Louis Park. Though the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes are interconnected with channels and operate as one

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 675 -->
waterbody, the individual lakes are considered separate by the MNDNR and MCWD. Brownie Lake is encompassed by Brownie Lake Park with trails and a canoe launch. Brownie Lake’s drainage area within the City is predominantly residential.

The surface water elevation of Brownie Lake was significantly lowered after railroad tracks were constructed between it and Cedar Lake in the mid-19th Century, and again in the 1910s when the channel that links Brownie Lake and Cedar Lake was opened. These actions also resulted in a surface area of the lake that is significantly smaller than existed before the railroad lines were installed. The MPRB acquired the lake in a larger (over 100-acre) acquisition as an expansion of Theodore Wirth Park in 1908. After a period of historically low water levels, water from Bassett’s Creek was pumped into Brownie Lake in 1958, which created a connection between Bassett Creek and the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. Water pumped from the creek initially raised lake levels. A pump station on the Mississippi River was constructed in 1966 to supplement Bassett Creek flows which ultimately supplemented the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes water levels. Pump stations were shut down in the 1990s due to concerns of water quality impacts, primarily phosphorus concentrations and invasive species.

In July 1993, a group known as the Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee presented Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton with the Green Report, which evaluated the Chain of Lakes and recommended measures for preservation and improvement. Funded by a Clean Water Partnership grant and made up of members of the MPRB, City Council, neighborhood groups, and community organizations, the Committee developed a report that moved quickly from an assessment of the Chain of Lakes to goals, recommendations, and implementation steps. With support from technical staff, the Committee reported on the state of the Chain of Lakes.

Improvements recommended in the 1993 report were implemented through a 391 Grant awarded by the MPCA. Efforts to improve Brownie Lake and adjacent parkland included a community-wide program that focused on removal of invasive plant species and rehabilitation of a stormwater pipe in Saint Louis Park.

Brownie Lake is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Brownie Lake, as summarized in Table 3.19.

<!-- page 676 -->
Table 3.19 – Brownie Lake Impaired Water Summary
| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| --- | --- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/1998<br>Aquatic Recreation/Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators/2004 (DE-LISTED 2010)<br>Aquatic Life/Chloride/2014 |
| TMDL Status | Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2007<br>Chloride: metro-wide TMDL approved in 2016 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Mercury in Fish Tissue: no responsibilities for local municipalities<br>Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended |

In 1998, Brownie Lake was listed as impaired due to mercury in fish tissue. Excess mercury concentrations have been found statewide (about two-thirds of impaired lakes had excess mercury by 2006) and are largely attributed to atmospheric deposition. As such, Minnesota lakes with mercury impairments have been added to a statewide mercury TMDL, which was first approved by the EPA.

In 2004, Brownie Lake was listed for impairment due to excess nutrients and then de-listed in 2010 when the MPCA determined that the water quality standard was met. However, it was noted that the lake could be listed again if total phosphorus concentrations rise. A MPRB 2014 Water Quality Report (May 2015) indicates that total phosphorus in the Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed had increased in June due to heavy precipitation and floods that occurred in 2014. The increase in total phosphorus after de-listing did not result in the lake being re-listed as impaired from excess nutrients; however, the impairment status is continuing to be monitored by the MPCA.

On March 27, 2007, Brownie Lake was added to the statewide mercury TMLDL list for the southwest region with a target completion date of 2025.

Brownie Lake was listed as impaired in 2014 in a metropolitan-wide TMDL study for chloride concentration. The MPCA partnered with local and state experts to create a plan for reduction of chloride concentrations through management of salt use on driving lanes, as summarized in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA) Chloride Management Plan dated February 2016. This plan identifies salts (primarily sodium chloride) applied to paved surfaces in the winter as the major source for elevated chloride concentrations in waters and from water softeners in rural areas as a secondary source. The EPA approved the metropolitan-wide TCMA TMDL on June 9, 2016. The TCMA Chloride Management Plan indicates that Brownie Lake has been identified as being meromixis, based on MPRB monitoring, which may suggest that increase water density from chloride concentrations has impeded the lake’s natural mixing and circulation. The MPRB reports that these conditions may be due to alterations to the watershed and outlet that occurred prior to the practice of winter salt application.

In 2008, the MPRB and the Minneapolis Public Works worked on restoration of an area that had eroded on the east side of the lake and replaced a stormwater outlet with a buried drop-structure and pipe. A canoe rack was installed along the north shore of the lake in 2009 and trail improvements were completed in 2014.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 677 -->
### Cedar Lake

The physical characteristics of Cedar Lake are summarized in Table 3.20.

**Table 3.20 – Cedar Lake Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Cedar Lake |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27003900 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Lake of the Isles |
| Surface Area | 164 acres |
| Depth – mean | 20 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 51 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 288 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Cedar Lake is in west-central Minneapolis and makes up part of the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, which also includes Brownie Lake, Lake of the Isles, Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, and Lake Harriet. Though the Chain of Lakes are interconnected with channels and operate as one waterbody, the individual lakes are considered as separate waterbodies by the MNDNR and the MCWD. The lake is surrounded by parkland with several recreational resources available: biking and walking paths, ski trail, fish pier, picnic areas with grills, a canoe launch, and 3 public beaches. The lake receives runoff from the City and Saint Louis Park. Though Cedar Lake is typically stratified, there is evidence in some years that the lake may mix during the late summer.

**Cedar Lake Swimming Beach**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The MPRB acquired the western parkways to Cedar Lake in 1902. The lake was dredged between 1911 and 1917, and channels were created in 1913 and 1916 to connect to Lake of the Isles to the east and Brownie Lake to the northwest. A part of the east shore was donated to MPRB in 1933 and, by 1953, MPRB obtained legal control of Cedar Lake waters despite not owning the entire shoreline. Additional land to the east was purchased through the mid- to late-1950s.

In July of 1993, a group known as the Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee presented Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton with the Green Report, which evaluated the Chain of Lakes and recommended measures for preservation and improvement. Funded by a Clean Water Partnership grant and made up of members of the MPRB, City Council, neighborhood groups, and community

<!-- page 678 -->
organizations, the committee developed a report that moved quickly from an assessment of the Chain of Lakes to goals, recommendations, and implementation steps. With support from technical staff, the committee reported on the state of the Chain of Lakes. The technical data showed Cedar Lake to be eutrophic. Furthermore, Secchi disk Trophic State Index (TSI) values had increased rapidly through the 1960s. The water quality of Cedar Lake was found to be worse than predicted by water quality modeling, which suggested that internal loads played a significant role.

Projects by the Clean Water Partnership to improve water quality in the lake were implemented through a 319 Grant awarded by the MPCA. Projects for Cedar Lake included a 4.6-acre constructed wetland near the southwest corner of the lake to treat stormwater runoff, which was completed in 1995. An aluminum sulfate (alum) treatment project in 1996 improved phosphorus levels at the lake’s surface. Secchi disk TSI values increased after the alum treatment ended in 2003 and the lake met the MPCA eutrophication standard for Secchi depth, chlorophyll-a, and total phosphorus, as reported in the MPRB’s 2015 Water Resources Report issued in April of 2016.

Cedar Lake is part of the MPRB’s annual lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report.

Purple loosestrife, an invasive wetland plant, has been controlled, as needed, by biocontrol (introduction of leaf-eating beetles). Eurasian water milfoil, another invasive water species, is also managed by the MPRB at Cedar Lake via mechanical harvesting. Additional information on efforts to control loosestrife and milfoil is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Cedar Lake, as summarized in Table 3.21.

**Table 3.21 – Cedar Lake Impaired Water Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/1998 |
| TMDL Status | Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2008 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Mercury in Fish Tissue: no responsibilities for local municipalities |

In 1998, Cedar Lake was listed as impaired due to mercury levels in fish.

### Cemetery Lake

The physical characteristics of Cemetery Lake are summarized in Table 3.22.

**Table 3.22 – Cemetery Lake Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Cemetery Lake |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27001700 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Lake Harriet |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 679 -->
| Surface Area | 10 acres |
| :--- | :--- |
| Depth – mean | unknown |
| Depth – maximum | unknown |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis [^p679-a] | Acreage included in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska watershed area |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

[^p679-a]: Watershed area is privately owned and does not receive stormwater runoff from the Minneapolis stormwater drainage system.

Cemetery Lake, also known as Jo Pond, is located between Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet. Cemetery Lake is situated in a garden cemetery, Lakewood Cemetery, developed in the 1870s. All stormwater runoff discharged to Cemetery Lake is from the surrounding cemetery and does not include runoff from City streets. The land is managed by Lakewood grounds crews.

Cemetery Lake has not been monitored or evaluated for impairments.

## Diamond Lake

The physical characteristics of Diamond Lake are summarized in Table 3.23.

**Table 3.23 – Diamond Lake Characteristics**
| River/Stream | Diamond Lake |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27002200 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2D, 3D, 4C, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Minnehaha Creek |
| Surface Area | 51 acres |
| Depth – mean | 3.2 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 5.8 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 663 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Diamond Lake is located immediately east of Interstate 35W, to the southeast of Lake Harriet, and to the southwest of Lake Nokomis. Pearl Park borders the lake to the north and Minnehaha Creek and Minnehaha Parkway is further to the north.

Amenities offered at the park include baseball/softball fields, basketball court, football/soccer fields, outdoor hockey and ice skating rink, picnic areas, pickleball court, playground, tennis courts, volleyball courts, restrooms, a wading pool, walking paths, and a canoe launch at the north end of Diamond Lake.

The land surrounding Diamond Lake was acquired by the MPRB in 1927. The land previously contained another lake called Pearl Lake, which was listed as separate from Diamond Lake in 1942. Pearl Lake was filled over the course of a few years in the 1930s, with at least 60,000 yards of fill provided by the nearby airport. Pearl Lake was then repurposed as a park with playing fields and courts, an ice rink, and a playground. A 12-inch drain in the center of the park drains to Diamond Lake. Due to settling and flooding issues at the former Pearl Lake, refilling and re-grading the area occurred multiple times in the

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 680 -->
park’s history. A recreation center was built in 1968. In 2006, an in-ground irrigation system was also added to the playing fields.

A stormwater pond was created in 2000 near 60th Street and 1st Avenue to help alleviate flooding and to treat stormwater upstream of Diamond Lake. In 2007, construction began on a nearby highway (35W/Highway 62) that altered the Diamond Lake watershed drainage area.

Diamond Lake is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Diamond Lake, as summarized in Table 3.24.

**Table 3.24 – Diamond Lake Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Recreation/Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators/2006 (DE-LISTED 2010) <br> Aquatic Life/Chloride/2014 |
| TMDL Status | Chloride: metropolitan-wide TMDL approved in 2016 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended |

Diamond Lake was reclassified as a wetland (or game lake) by the MPCA in 2008 due to its depth and percentage of lake that is littoral zone. There are no nutrient standards for wetlands at this time, therefore, there are no eutrophication standards to assess the water quality in the Diamond Lake wetland. Therefore, although Diamond Lake with its previous waterbody classification was listed as impaired for excess nutrients in 2006, it was removed from the impaired waters list in 2010 due to this reclassification to wetland.

The long-term monitoring information for Diamond Lake was used to develop the 2009 Diamond Lake Management Plan, prepared by MPRB, Friends of Diamond Lake, and Health Lakes & Rivers Partnership Committee. The report includes a detailed history of the lake and characteristics of the lake and surrounding land. It establishes long-term goals for the lake and action plans to accomplish those goals. Recommended actions include ongoing monitoring, identification of locations to install structural SMPs, survey of plants and animals, implementation of an education program, improvements to trails, and improvements for water access.

Diamond Lake was listed as impaired in 2014 in a metropolitan-wide TMDL study for chloride concentration with an initial target TMDL completion of 2015. The EPA approved the metropolitan-wide TCMA TMDL on June 9, 2016 in a letter that also identified Diamond Lake as a wetland. The MPCA partnered with local and state experts to create a plan for reduction of chloride concentrations in water through management of salt use on land, resulting in the TCMA Chloride Management Plan in February of 2016. This plan identifies salts (primarily sodium chloride) applied to paved surfaces in the winter as the major source for chloride in waters, and water softeners in rural areas as a secondary source. The

<!-- page 681 -->
implementation for the metropolitan-wide TCMA Chloride Management Plan is further discussed in the section for Brownie Lake, which is also listed in the plan.

Between 2014 and 2016, Metro Blooms led the Diamond Lake Blooming Alleys Project. This cost-share project encouraged residents to install rain gardens, permeable pavements, and/or native plants in areas adjacent to alleys within the Lake Nokomis watershed. A total of 50 properties within 4 alleys participated in the program.

### Ewing Wetland
The physical characteristics of Ewing Wetland are summarized in Table 3.25.

**Table 3.25 – Ewing Wetland Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Ewing Wetland |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | None |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2D, 3D, 4C, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Landlocked |
| Surface Area | 2 acres |
| Depth – mean | Unknown |
| Depth – maximum | Unknown |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | Acreage include in Cedar Lake area |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Ewing Wetland is located to the west of Brownie Lake and Cedar Lake along France Avenue South in Saint Louis Park. The wetland receives runoff from a residential area in the City. Prior to 1995, the wetland was unnamed and privately owned. The upland portion of the property was divided into ten lots and houses were eventually constructed on all lots. Runoff from the local street, and the 10 properties, discharges to a private stormwater pond, which discharges to Ewing Wetland. The wetland area was delineated and platted as an outlot. It was deeded to the Department of Public Works and is currently managed as an undeveloped area.

Ewing Wetland has not been monitored or evaluated for impairments.

### Grass Lake
The physical characteristics of Grass Lake are summarized in Table 3.26.

<!-- page 682 -->
**Table 3.26 – Grass Lake Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Grass Lake |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27068100 |
| DNR Classification | Natural Environment |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2D, 3D, 4C, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Richfield Lake |
| Surface Area | 27 acres |
| Depth – mean | 2 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 4.9 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 325 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Grass Lake is located immediately northwest of the intersection of Interstate 35W and Highway 62. Despite its name, Grass Lake is officially a wetland according to the MPCA and is known for bird watching. The adjacent land is not part of the Minneapolis Park system, though Grass Lake was added to the MPRB lake sampling program in 2002.

Grass Lake was previously part of the larger Richfield Lake located to the southeast, which was divided by construction of Highway 62. The separated Grass Lake was dredged to help provide fill for the new highway in 1962. The two lakes were joined by a pipe to preserve their former hydrogeology. Stormwater runoff and storm sewers from the highway drain into the wetland. In 1995, grit chambers were constructed at the end of storm drain pipes to remove debris from the runoff prior to discharge to Grass Lake.

Grass Lake is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

### Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska

The physical characteristics of Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska are summarized in Table 3.27.

**Table 3.27 – Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27003100 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Lake Harriet |
| Surface Area | 420 acres |
| Depth – mean | Unknown |
| Depth – maximum | 82 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 1,250 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 683 -->
Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska is located in south Minneapolis as part of the Chain of Lakes and is situated between Lake of the Isles (to the north from West Lake Street) and Lake Harriet (to the south past Lakewood Cemetery). The Minneapolis Chain of Lakes also includes Brownie Lake and Lake of the Isles. Though the Chain of Lakes are interconnected with channels and operate as one waterbody, the individual lakes are considered separate by the MNDNR and MCWD. Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska is the largest lake in Minneapolis, as well as the deepest lake monitored by the MPRB. The lake receives runoff from Minneapolis and Saint Louis Park.

The lake is part of the Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway and is primarily used for recreational activities. Recreational activities include highly used trails, sailing, canoe/kayak, restaurant, and 3 public swimming beaches.

In May 2017, the MPRB started the process for formally restore the name of Lake Calhoun to its original Dakota name of Bde Maka Ska, meaning White Earth Lake. As property owner of the entire shoreline of the Lake, the MPRB has the authority to request a name change but cannot unilaterally approve this change. As of January 2018, the MPRB had formally recognized this Lake as Bde Maka Ska. A formal request for approval has been approved by Hennepin County, the MNDNR, and the United States Board on Geographic Names. As of July 2018, the lake name change is officially Bde Maka Ska.

Land adjacent to the lake was acquired in pieces and coincided with the gradual purchase and donation of lands near Lake of the Isles and Lake Harriet. There was a 25-year gap between the MPRB acquisition of the eastern shores and the south and western shores. The lands around the lake were not completely owned by the MPRB until 1908. Recreational use of the lake started as early as 1887 with a skating rink, a horse racetrack (later moved to Lake of the Isles), and boat rentals. A temporary bathhouse was constructed in 1890 and by the following year, the lake was stocked with fish supplied by the Minnesota Fish Commission.

A channel was constructed to connect the Lake of the Isles to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska in 1911. Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska was dredged after construction of the connection and again in 1923 through 1925, which created beaches on the south and east shores. Wetlands in the area were drained via pipeline to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska in 1923 to aid in park development. The channel between Lake of the Isles and Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska was dredged in the 1950s after a period of low water levels. Fishing docks were installed at the lake in 1966. A pump station brought water from Bassett Creek to Brownie Lake and, thus, the rest of the connected Chain of Lakes, as described in the Brownie Lake section.

### Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 684 -->
In July 1993, a group known as the Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee presented Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton with the Green Report, which evaluated the Chain of Lakes and recommended measures for preservation and improvement. Funded by a Clean Water Partnership grant and made up of members of the MPRB, City Council, neighborhood groups, and community organizations, the Committee developed a report that moved quickly from an assessment of the Chain of Lakes to goals, recommendations, and implementation steps. With support from technical staff, the Committee reported on the state of the Chain of Lakes. The technical data showed Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska to be eutrophic. Furthermore, Secchi disk Trophic State Index (TSI) values had increased rapidly through the 1960s. The water quality of Cedar Lake was found to be worse than predicted by water quality modeling, which suggested that internal loads played a significant role.

The projects recommended in the 1993 report were implemented through a 319 Grant awarded by the MPCA. By 1999, a three-cell wet detention system was installed near the southwest area of Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska to treat stormwater from Minneapolis and Saint Louis Park prior to discharge into the lake. A monitoring and assessment report titled Southwest Lake Calhoun Wetland Ponds Project (1999), documented the effect of these three ponds on pollutant removal. In addition, the MPRB performed shoreline repairs to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska in 1999 to prevent erosion and installed grit chambers to improve water quality. Grit chamber installation continued until 2004.

Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, as summarized in Table 3.28.

### Table 3.28 – Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska Impaired Waters Summary

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/1998 <br> Aquatic Consumption/Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in Fish Tissue/2008 |
| TMDL Status | Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2008 <br> PFOS in Fish Tissue: regulatory action by MPCA in lieu of a TMDL |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Mercury in Fish Tissue: mercury impairment is not stormwater related <br> PFOS in Fish Tissue: no municipal action required |

Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska was first identified as impaired and added to the Minnesota Statute 303(d) list for mercury content found in fish tissue in 1998. Excess mercury concentrations have been found statewide and are largely attributed to atmospheric deposition. As such, the Minnesota lakes with mercury impairments have been added to a statewide mercury TMDL, which was first approved by the EPA on March 27, 2007. The statewide TMDL is divided into two categories: the northeast and southwest regions, each with separate targets. Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska is included on the statewide mercury TMDL list for the southwest region with a target completion date of 2025. The implementation for the statewide mercury TMDL is further discussed in Appendix E.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 685 -->
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) was first identified in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska in 2014 by researchers at the University of Minnesota, which led to a fish consumption advisory by the Minnesota Department of Health and the lake being listed as impaired for PFOS. The MPCA used stormwater sampling to trace the contamination back to a metal plating facility (the Douglas Corporation) in Saint Louis Park. The facility stopped using the PFOS-containing product as of 2010 and has implemented additional efforts to prevent PFOS-contaminated stormwater runoff. Continued monitoring is being conducted by the facility and the MPCA. In May of 2016, a Schedule of Compliance was signed by the Douglas Corporation and the MPCA that requires continuation of monitoring and either containment or treatment of the stormwater. According to a Minnesota Conservation Federation blog, “the last testing in 2013 showed PFOS concentrations in fish were decreasing. The MPCA intends to test again in 2016” (MPCA News Release, MPCA announces resolution of investigation in PFOS in Lake Calhoun, published June 14, 2016). To-date, no additional monitoring information has been published.

The TCMA Chloride Management Plan (February 2016) lists Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska as a high-risk waterbody for potential chloride impairment, which means that the chloride concentration in at least one sample of water within the past 10 years was within 10 percent of the chronic water quality standard (207 mg/L chloride). Although the lake has not been listed as impaired for chloride, the TCMA Chloride Management Plan encourages high-risk waterbodies to follow proactive actions similar to those for impaired waters, as prevention for chloride contamination is easier than restoration.

In 2009, permeable pavers and rain gardens were installed as part of a parking lot reconstruction project. A swimming dock and diving platform were installed in 2011. A new fishing dock was constructed in 2012, and the older dock was replaced in 2013.

Vegetation management and water quality improvements for Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska have involved alum treatment to limit phosphorus concentrations (2001), control of the invasive plant species loosestrife through biocontrol, and management of Eurasian water milfoil by mechanical harvesting. These efforts are described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

### Lake Harriet

The physical characteristics of Lake Harriet are summarized in Table 3.29.

#### Table 3.29 – Lake Harriet Characteristics

| River/Stream | Lake Harriet |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27001600 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Minnehaha Creek |
| Surface Area | 335 acres |
| Depth – mean | 29 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 85 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 1,120 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 686 -->
As the downstream-most lake in the Chain of Lakes, Lake Harriet is located in the southwest part of Minneapolis near Minnehaha Creek. Other lakes in the Chain of Lakes include Brownie Lake, Lake of the Isles, and Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska. Though the Chain of Lakes are interconnected with channels and operate as one waterbody, the individual lakes are considered separate by the MNDNR and the MCWD.

Sailing, swimming, and fishing are the main recreational activities at the lake. Lyndale Park, along the northern shore of the lake, features gardens, a decorative fountain, a bird sanctuary, and a band shell.

Most of the lake and parkland area was donated to the MPRB in 1895 by Colonel W.S. King, a former park commissioner. Additional land to the north and northeast of the lake, currently Lyndale Park, was donated by King to the MPRB in the 1890s. A road between the park and lake was paved and trees were planted in the park in 1904. By 1910, a rose garden was installed in the park and an access road from King’s Highway to the lake was created. Gardens were installed in the park from the 1900s through the 1920s. The bird sanctuary was added in 1936 and the decorative fountain was installed in 1947. A second fountain was installed in 1963 and an expansion of gardens occurred in the 1960s. The rock garden was transformed into the current Peace Garden, that includes a peace bridge flanked by stones from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in 1985. The floating docks in the lake were extended in 2006.

A gravity outlet, open channel, and pipe connection were installed to connect Lake Harriet and Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska. Water from Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska enters Lake Harriet through a submerged pipe near a boat launch to the northeast and Lake Harriet, in turn, discharges to Minnehaha Creek through submerged pipe located to the south.

In July 1993, a group known as the Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee presented Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton with the Green Report, which evaluated the Chain of Lakes and recommended strong measures for preservation and improvement. The committee urged the City and MPRB to proceed with similar evaluations and water quality improvement projects for the other waters in the City that were not covered in the Green Report. Funded by a Clean Water Partnership grant and made up of members of the MPRB, City Council, neighborhood groups, and community organizations, the committee developed a report that moved quickly from an assessment of the Chain of Lakes to goals, recommendations, and implementation steps. With support from their technical staff, the committee reported on the state of the Chain of Lakes. They found that Lake Harriet was the only lake of the four that was mesotrophic based on a significantly lower total phosphorus concentration than the other lakes. The committee considered Lake Harriet as a model for what might be accomplished at Cedar Lake and Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska. One of the key indicators of Lake

**Lake Harriet**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 687 -->
Harriet’s good water quality was the persistence of daphnia, a zooplankton, throughout the year. As noted for the other lakes, the persistence of daphnia occurs when algal blooms are limited.

Improvements recommended in the 1993 report were implemented through a 319 Grant awarded by the MPCA. The Clean Water Partnership study recommended improvement of water quality by reduction of phosphorus in the lakes. For this purpose, activities affecting Lake Harriet included public education, increased frequency of street sweeping, and limited aluminum sulfate (alum) treatment to control filamentous algae. Grit chambers were installed from 1994 through 1996.

Lake Harriet is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Lake Harriet, as summarized in Table 3.30.

### Table 3.30 – Lake Harriet Impaired Waters Summary

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/1998<br>Aquatic Consumption/Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Fish Tissue/2008 |
| TMDL Status | Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2008<br>PFOS in Fish Tissue: regulatory action underway by MPCA in lieu of TMDL |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Mercury in Fish Tissue: mercury impairment is not stormwater related<br>PFOS in Fish Tissue: no municipal action required |

Lake Harriet has not been listed as impaired for phosphate levels. Although phosphorus levels were identified as a potential risk to the lake, it appears that peak levels occurred in the 1970s and through the implementation of best management practices, such as those listed previously, phosphorus levels have declined since that time.

Lake Harriet was found to be impaired for aquatic consumption and added to the Minnesota Statutes 303(d) list based on mercury content found in fish tissue in 1998. Excess mercury concentrations have been found statewide and are largely attributed to atmospheric deposition. As such, the Minnesota lakes with mercury impairments have been added to the statewide mercury TMDL, which was first approved by the EPA on March 27, 2007. The statewide TMDL is divided into two categories, the northeast and southwest regions, each with separate targets. Lake Harriet is included in the statewide mercury TMDL list for the southwest region with a target completion date of 2025.

According to the EPA Waterbody Quality Assessment Report online database and the MPCA’s 2016 Minnesota Impaired Waters List, Lake Harriet is also listed as impaired due to the presence of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in fish tissue since 2008. As Lake Harriet is connected to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, the presence of PFOS in its waters is associated with the identified industrial contamination described in the Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska section. PFOS was first identified in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska in 2014 by researchers at the University of Minnesota, which led to a fish consumption advisory by the Minnesota Department of Health and the lake being listed as impaired for

<!-- page 688 -->
PFOS. The MPCA used stormwater sampling to trace the contamination back to a metal plating facility (the Douglas Corporation) in Saint Louis Park. The facility stopped using the PFOS-containing product as of 2010 and has implemented additional efforts to prevent PFOS-contaminated stormwater runoff. Continued monitoring is being conducted by the facility and the MPCA. In May 2016, a Schedule of Compliance was signed by the Douglas Corporation and the MPCA that requires continuation of monitoring and either containment or treatment of the stormwater. According to a Minnesota Conservation Federation blog, "the last testing in 2014 showed PFOS concentrations in fish were decreasing. The MPCA intends to test again in 2016." (MPCA News Release, MPCA announces resolution of investigation in PFOS in Lake Calhoun, published June 14, 2016). To-date, no additional monitoring information has been published.

Vegetation management and water quality improvements for Lake Harriet have involved alum treatment to limit phosphorus concentrations (2001), control of the invasive plant species loosestrife through biocontrol, and management of Eurasian water milfoil by mechanical harvesting. These efforts are described in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

### Lake Hiawatha
The physical characteristics of Lake Hiawatha are summarized in Table 3.31.

**Table 3.31 – Lake Hiawatha Characteristics**
| River/Stream | Lake Hiawatha |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27001800 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Minnehaha Creek |
| Surface Area | 53 acres |
| Depth – mean | 16.4 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 28 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 1,243 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Although Lake Hiawatha has the appearance of a lake, it is actually a widened section of Minnehaha Creek, consisting of a basin north of the main channel of the Creek. As such, the water quality in the lake is greatly dependent on the large inflow from Minnehaha Creek. The lake is located in the Lake Nokomis-Lake Hiawatha Regional Park and adjacent to the Hiawatha Golf Course. The MPCA classifies Lake Hiawatha as a lake, as the average depth is (slightly) greater than 15 feet.

Before it was acquired by the MPRB in 1922, Lake Hiawatha was a shallow wetland named Rice Lake for the wild rice that grew along the shoreline. The lake was dredged and reshaped in the late 1920s. The dredged material was used to fill and create the adjacent Hiawatha Golf Course, which opened in 1934, and a beach on the eastern shore, which was created in 1931. As shores created by dredged materials are susceptible to erosion, a federal work relief project added walls along the southern and eastern shorelines to prevent erosion at Lake Hiawatha in 1939.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 689 -->
The Blue Water Commission was established and issued a report in 1998 on recommendations for Lake Hiawatha and Lake Nokomis. The Blue Water Commission found that Lake Hiawatha and Lake Nokomis are eutrophic. The Commission also identified bacteria contamination and fish kills as among the many other concerns associated with these lakes. The Commission organized their concerns around central themes, such as:

*   Swimability – interference by algae and weeds, bacteria contamination, and swimmer’s itch.
*   Fishability – safety of fish consumption, fish kills, and weeks impeding fishing.
*   Aesthetics – odor, clarity, algae blooms, and shoreline aesthetics.
*   Plant Diversity and Wildlife – namely reduction in exotic species.
*   Shoreline Environment – vegetation restoration and elimination of sediment deltas.

These concerns led the Blue Water Commission to recommend implementation steps. These recommendations included a strong emphasis on reduction of phosphorus loads into both lakes. Since 1998, the City, MPRB, and MCWD have implemented several projects that follow directly from the report recommendations. Examples of these projects include a shoreline and littoral area revegetation (2001) and construction of detention basins within the major subwatersheds to Lake Hiawatha (2000-2001).

Lake Hiawatha is included in the MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Lake Hiawatha, as summarized in Table 3.32.

**Table 3.32 – Lake Hiawatha Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Recreation/Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators/2002 |
| TMDL Status | Excess Nutrients: TMDL approved February 2, 2014 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Excess Nutrients: urban/residential nutrient reduction strategies are encouraged |

Lake Hiawatha was identified as impaired by excess nutrients, specifically phosphorus, in 2002. This impairment was documented in a MCWD study that included Lake Hiawatha and eight other lakes in the watershed identified with similar impairments. Long-term monitoring data collected by the MPRB was used to confirm the strong relationship between the water quality of Minnehaha Creek and Lake Hiawatha. For this reason, Lake Hiawatha was removed from this nine-lake study and incorporated into a separate TMDL project that encompassed impairments to Minnehaha Creek. Minnehaha Creek and Lake Hiawatha were added to the TMDL for bacteria impairment based on the fecal coliform indicator.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 690 -->
The Minnehaha Creek bacteria TMDL and the Lake Hiawatha nutrient TMDL both address aquatic recreational use impairments.

Several nonpoint sources were identified as the source of phosphorus load to Minnehaha Creek and Lake Hiawatha. These sources include upstream nonpoint source loads from Lake Minnetonka (headwaters of Minnehaha Creek), atmospheric deposition, wetland and forest sources, groundwater discharge, non-regulated stormwater runoff, and wildlife inputs. Implementation strategies for reduction of phosphorus concentrations include:

*   Urban/residential nutrient reduction strategies (e.g., controlled volume runoff, increased infiltration, and vegetation buffers).

*   Municipal activities (e.g., increased frequency of street sweeping and installation of stormwater BMPs).

*   Protection and restoration of wetlands (especially wetlands in the floodplain of Minnehaha Creek).

*   Public education.

The contribution of Minnehaha Creek flows to Lake Hiawatha results in a watershed to lake surface area ratio of 550:1, that is among the highest in Minnesota. Additionally, the lake experiences relatively short residence time (4.4 days), which reduces algae growth, allowing for a greater concentration of phosphorus. Due to these characteristics, site-specific standards for the total phosphorus load goals were developed by the MPCA. The lake is in the implementation phase for achievement of these standards.

In addition to its excess nutrients impairment, Lake Hiawatha was identified in the TCMA Chloride Management Plan (February 2016) as a high-risk waterbody for potential chloride impairment, which means that the chloride concentration in at least one sample of water within the past 10 years was within 10 percent of the chronic water quality standard (207 mg/L chloride). Although the lake has not been listed as impaired for chloride, the TCMA Chloride Management Plan encourages high-risk waterbodies to follow proactive actions similar to those for impaired waters.

After Minnehaha Creek and the Hiawatha Golf Course flooded in 2014, it was discovered that the MPRB pumps approximately 242 million gallons of groundwater annually to keep the property open as a playable, 18-hole golf course. This groundwater use was not part of the MPRB’s existing MNDNR groundwater appropriations permit. As of the date of this report, the City and the MPRB are working with regulatory agencies, members of the public, and other stakeholders to develop a master plan that addresses the high groundwater levels and park use.

### Lake Nokomis
The physical characteristics of Lake Nokomis are summarized in Table 3.33.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 691 -->
**Table 3.33 – Lake Nokomis Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Lake Nokomis |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27001900 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Minnehaha Creek |
| Surface Area | 204 acres |
| Depth – mean | 14 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 33 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 695 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Lake Nokomis is located immediately south of Minnehaha Creek and is situated midway between the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes (to the west) and the Mississippi River (to the east). Lake Nokomis is part of the Lake Nokomis-Lake Hiawatha Regional Park, which also encompasses Lake Hiawatha to the northeast.

Lake Nokomis is the downstream lake in a series of lakes and wetlands that are outside the municipal boundary of the City. The easterly, uppermost lake is Mother Lake, located within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Airport. Mother Lake discharges to Taft Lake, which is at the southwest quadrant of the Crosstown/Cedar Avenue interchange in Richfield. Legion Lake is the uppermost westerly lake that also drains into Taft Lake. Taft Lake discharges into Solomon Park Wetland, which in turn discharges to Lake Nokomis.

The park features biking and walking paths, sports fields, basketball and tennis courts, a recreational center, fishing pier, fountains, playground, a wading pool, picnic area, and boat docks. Swimming beaches are located on the lake, and swimming, sailing, fishing, and ice fishing occur.

The lake was known as Lake Amelia at the time it was purchased by the MPRB in 1907. At the time, the area was comprised of open water, wetland, and a peat bog. A small bathhouse was installed in 1909. The lake was reshaped and dredged to connect the former Lake Amelia to the nearby creek, with water surfaces reduced from 300 acres to 200 acres in 1914. A new bathhouse was constructed by 1920 (replaced in 1967), which led to the high popularity of swimming in the lake. A WPA shore wall was installed along the lagoon and on the east and west shores in the 1930s. Also, in the 1930s, a weir was constructed to fix the water elevation in the lake. The purpose and function of the current structure is to prevent Minnehaha Creek flows from entering the lake.

The lake was treated with sodium arsenite in the 1950s to control weeds that had grown during low water conditions at the time.

The Blue Water Commission was established and issued a report in 1998 on recommendations for Lake Nokomis and the nearby Lake Hiawatha. The Blue Water Commission findings were that Lake Hiawatha and Lake Nokomis are eutrophic. The Commission also identified fecal contamination and fish kills as

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 692 -->
primary among the many other concerns associated with the lakes. The Commission organized their concerns around central themes, such as:

* Swimability – interference by algae and weeds, fecal contamination, and swimmer’s itch.
* Fishability – safety of fish consumption, fish kills, and weeds impeding fishing.
* Aesthetics – odor, clarity, algae blooms, and shoreline aesthetics.
* Plant Diversity and Wildlife – namely reduction in exotic species.
* Shoreline Environment – vegetation restoration and elimination of sediment deltas.

### East Lake Nokomis Wetlands

<<FIGURE>>

Credit: *Minneapolis Public Works*

These concerns led the Blue Water Commission to recommend implementation steps. These recommendations included a strong emphasis on reduction of phosphorus inputs into both lakes. The City, MCWD, and MPRB implemented several of the recommendations, which included additional increased frequency of street sweeping starting in 1998, removal of carp in 2000, construction of three wetland settling ponds with grit chambers to the southwest in 2001, and installation of a weir in 2000 to prevent Minnehaha Creek water from flowing into the lake.

The weir separating Minnehaha Creek from the lake was reconstructed in 2000 as an inflatable weir that allows the lake to discharge to the Creek, while it prevents the Creek from overflowing into the lake. The purpose is to prevent the contribution of nutrient-rich water and invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels). This weir is operated according to requirements set in a permit from the MNDNR.

An effort to remove carp from the lake in the winter of 2001-2002 was intended to limit the internal phosphorus loads caused by the fish when they forage in lake sediments. Similar efforts were repeated in a three-year biomanipulation study from 2010 to 2013, which aimed to reduce sediment disturbance by burrowing fish. The biomanipulation study focused on internal circulation of nutrients by the fish population, primarily black bullheads and bluegill sunfish. The project targeted and removed adult bullheads and stocked the lake with walleye, which prey on the bullheads and bluegills.

The Amelia stormwater pond was dredged in 2011 to remove accumulated sediments and to remove invasive plant species. MCWD reconstructed the weir again in 2012.

Lake Nokomis included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

<!-- page 693 -->
The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Lake Nokomis, as summarized in Table 3.34.

**Table 3.34 – Lake Nokomis Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/1998<br>Aquatic Consumption/PCB in Fish Tissue/1998<br>Aquatic Recreation/Excess Nutrients/2002 |
| TMDL Status | Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2008<br>PCB in Fish Tissue: study not started<br>Excess Nutrients: TMDL study approved in 2011 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Mercury in Fish Tissue: mercury impairment is not stormwater related<br>PCB in Fish Tissue: N/A<br>Excess Nutrients: municipal actions are encouraged |

Lake Nokomis was first identified as impaired and added to the Minnesota 303(d) list for mercury content found in fish tissue in 1998. Excess mercury concentrations have been found statewide and are largely attributed to atmospheric deposition. The lake was also determined to have another impairment with PCB found in fish tissue the same year as its mercury impairment was identified (1998). The EPA Waterbody Quality Assessment Report online database indicates that a TMDL study for this impairment is still needed. The MPCA 2016 303(d) Impaired Waters List projects a TMDL completion by 2025.

Lake Nokomis was identified as impaired by excess nutrients, specifically phosphorus, in 2002. As the TMDL study for this impairment was conducted, eight other lakes within the MCWD were identified with similar impairments and were incorporated into one metropolitan-wide study. Five of the lakes (Brownie Lake, Powderhorn Lake, Diamond Lake, Lake of the Isles, and Lake Hiawatha) were eventually removed from the study for various reasons (i.e., improved water quality criteria or changes to waterbody classification). Of the four other lakes, Lake Nokomis is the only one located in Minneapolis. A metropolitan-wide TMDL report for excess nutrients in these four lakes was approved by the EPA April 25, 2011.

The TMDL report identified phosphorus sources as stormwater runoff, internal loads, and atmospheric deposition. For Lake Nokomis, the TMDL recommended increased frequency of street sweeping, the installation of rain gardens/neighborhood water quality ponds, the installation of rain barrels, the creation of infiltration swales, the installation of curb cuts, the installation of pervious pavement, and educational programs throughout the subwatershed.

The TMDL report indicated that for state nutrient standards to be met, the lake required a reduction in overall phosphorus load. Taft Lake and Legion Lake are involved in the TMDL for Lake Nokomis into which they drain and are responsible for reduction of total phosphorus loads. A phosphorus reduction plan for the two lakes was scheduled to be completed by the Spring of 2016 and included a water reuse infiltration system, native prairie restoration and buffers, grit chambers (Legion Lake only), in-situ flocculation treatment systems (Taft Lake only), construction of the Richfield Parkway North Connection, and removal of Taft Lake Frontage Road.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 694 -->
Between 2015 and 2017, Metro Blooms led the Nokomis Blooming Alley Project. This cost-share project encouraged residents to install rain gardens, permeable pavements, and/or native plants in areas adjacent to alleys within the Lake Nokomis watershed. A total of 180 properties, within 15 alleys, participated in the program. The result was installation of more than 160 rain gardens and permeable pavements.

As a result of University of Minnesota research, it was determined that the carp population of Lake Nokomis likely has a negative effect on the water quality. In 2016, the MPRB and MCWD received a grant from the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund to update the carp management of Lake Nokomis, its upstream lakes, and connecting storm drains. Currently, the MPRB is collecting data on the carp, including population and patterns of movement. The information will be used to determine the optimal time and locations for winter carp removal. The project also includes study of the viability of carp barriers and completion of a long-term carp management plan. The project is expected to be completed in late-2019.

In 2017, the MPRB initiated a shoreline enhancement project to improve the landscape, vegetation, habitat, and water quality of Lake Nokomis. The long-term goal of this project is to reduce invasive vegetation and increase native vegetation. The MPRB is in the process of soliciting public input. The MPRB received funds from the Minnesota Legacy Outdoor Heritage Fund for the proposed improvements to the northern and eastern shoreline of the lake.

### Lake of the Isles
The physical characteristics of Lake of the Isles is summarized in Table 3.35.

#### Table 3.35 – Lake of the Isles Characteristics
| River/Stream | Lake of the Isles |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27004000 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska |
| Surface Area | 109 acres |
| Depth – mean | 9 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 31 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 770 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Lake of the Isles is the center of the Chain of Lakes, near uptown Minneapolis. Though the Chain of Lakes are interconnected with channels and operate as one waterbody, the individual lakes are considered separate by the MNDNR and the MCWD. Two islands are present in the middle of Lake of the Isles, which contributed to the lake’s name. Lake of the Isles Park features biking and walking paths, fountains, fishing pier, hockey rink, ice skating rink, and a soccer field. Canoe racks are available on the south and northwest sides of Lake of the Isles.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 695 -->
The history of Lake of the Isles overlaps Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska’s history as parkland between the two lakes were acquired concurrently. Lake development projects often included both lakes. Historically, the lake was surrounded by wetlands and contained four islands, two of which were removed during development through fill and dredging. The parkland of the lake was acquired through a donation in 1886. The two islands in the lake were purchased by the MPRB in 1887.

The northern and eastern shores of the lake were dredged from 1889 through 1893. While piecemeal acquisitions of the Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska area took place in the early 1900s, a channel connecting Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska to Lake of the Isles was proposed and ultimately constructed in 1911. Dredging in Lake of the Isles restarted in 1907, around the same time that the land between the two lakes and Kenwood Park to the north were acquired. Additional land between Lake of the Isles and Cedar Lake was donated in 1909 to the MPRB for connection between those two lakes, which was completed in 1913. Paving of the parkway began in 1923.

The historically swampy area of Lake of the Isles was transformed over this time such that water area increased from 100 acres to 120 acres of water, 33 acres of dry land was more than doubled to 80 acres, and 67 acres of wetland was removed completely. However, the use of dredged wetland material as fill to create parkland resulted in settling and erosion issues.

In 1950, the channel between Lake of the Isles and Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska was dredged again to deepen the channel; however, by the late 1950s, sediment had built up in the channel to the extent that canoes could not fit through. Additionally, some parts of the shore would flood during storms due to lack of wetlands.

Aquatic plants flourished during low water periods leading up to the 1950s, which led to treatments of sodium arsenite in 1959.

In July 1993, a group known as the Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee presented Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton with the Green Report, which evaluated the Chain of Lakes and recommended strong measures for preserving and improving them. Funded by a Clean Water Partnership grant and made up of members of the MPRB, City Council, neighborhood groups, and community organizations, the committee developed a report that moved quickly from an assessment of the Chain of Lakes to goals, recommendations, and implementation steps. With support from their technical staff, the committee reported on the state of the Chain of Lakes. Lake of the Isles was found to be eutrophic and had the highest measured total phosphorus concentrations in the entire chain. Algal blooms were frequent. Water quality in the lake was better than predicted by models likely due to the presence of milfoil, a plant that utilizes phosphorus from the water.

The Clean Water Partnership study recommended improvements to water quality through reduction of phosphorus in the lakes. The recommended improvements were funded through a 319 Grant awarded by the MPCA. For this purpose, grit chambers were installed from 1994 to 1999 for stormwater sediment removal, and in 1997 the lake was treated with aluminum sulfate (alum). From 1998 to 1999, the MPRB completed shoreline repairs and native plantings to prevent erosion. In 2001, to improve water quality and shorelines, the MPRB started a similar project that included shoreline stabilization, wetland restoration and enhancement, path reconstruction, and upland plant restoration. Vegetation management to control the invasive species of purple loosestrife and Eurasian water milfoil continues.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 696 -->
Lake of the Isles is included in the MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Lake of the Isles, as summarized in Table 3.36.

**Table 3.36 – Lake of the Isles Impaired Waters Status**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/1998<br>Aquatic Consumption/Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in Fish Tissue/2008 |
| TMDL Status | Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2007<br>PFOS in Fish Tissue: regulatory action underway by MPCA in lieu of TMDL |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Mercury in Fish Tissue: no municipal responsibilities<br>PFOS in Fish Tissue: no municipal responsibilities |

Lake of the Isles was first identified as impaired and added to the Minnesota 303(d) list for mercury content found in fish tissue in 1998. Excess mercury concentrations have been found state-wide and are largely attributed to atmospheric deposition. As such, the Minnesota lakes with mercury impairments have been added to a statewide mercury TMDL, which was first approved by the EPA on March 27, 2007. The statewide TMDL is divided into two categories, the northeast and southwest regions, each with separate targets. Lake of the Isles is included on the statewide mercury TMDL list for the southwest region with a target completion date of 2025.

Lake of the Isles is also listed as impaired due to the presence of PFOS in fish tissue since 2008. Presence of PFOS is primarily related to industrial discharge to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska. PFOS was first identified in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska in 2014 by researchers at the University of Minnesota, which led to a fish consumption advisory by the Minnesota Department of Health and the lake being listed as impaired for PFOS. The MPCA used stormwater sampling to trace the contamination back to a metal plating facility (the Douglas Corporation) in Saint Louis Park. The facility stopped using the PFOS-contaminating product as of 2010 and has implemented additional efforts to prevent PFOS-contaminated stormwater runoff. Continued monitoring is being conducted by the facility and the MPCA. In May 2016, a Schedule of Compliance was signed by the Douglas Corporation and the MPCA that requires continuation of monitoring and either contaminant or treatment of the stormwater. According to a Minnesota Conservation Federation blog, “the last testing in 2013 showed PFOS concentrations in fish were decreasing. The MPCA intends to test again in 2016.” (MPCA News Release, MPCA announces resolution of investigation in PFOS in Lake Calhoun, published June 14, 2016). To-date, no additional monitoring information has been published.

In addition to its mercury and PFOS impairments, Lake of the Isles was identified in the TCMA Chloride Management Plan from February 2016 as a high-risk waterbody for potential chloride impairment, which means that the chloride concentration in at least one sample of water within the past 10 years

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 697 -->
was within 10 percent of the chronic water quality standard (207 mg/L chloride). Although the lake has not been listed as impaired for chloride, the TCMA Chloride Management Plan encourages high-risk waterbodies to follow proactive actions similar to those for impaired waters, as prevention for chloride contamination is easier than restoration.

The implementation for the statewide mercury TMDL and the metropolitan-wide TCMA Chloride Management Plan is further discussed in Appendix E.

As part of Arbor Day celebrations in 2008, 125 trees were planted on the north shore. In 2008, the MPRB performed extensive restoration on the wildlife refuges on the lake’s two islands.

This channel under the Lake Street bridge was dredged again in 2014 as part of the Metropolitan Council project to replace a sanitary sewer force main that crosses under the channel.

An invasive aquatic plant species, Eurasian water milfoil, was identified in the lake in 1987. Current practice to control the milfoil involves mechanical harvesting of the plant. Lake of the Isles also has experienced extensive areas of purple loosestrife, which is controlled by biocontrol, the release of beetles that feed on the loosestrife. These efforts are further described in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

### Loring Pond

The physical characteristics of Loring Pond are summarized in Table 3.37.

#### Table 3.37 – Loring Pond Characteristics

| River/Stream | Loring Pond |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 2706500 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Mississippi River |
| Surface Area | 8 acres |
| Depth – mean | 5 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 17 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 27 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Mississippi Watershed Management Organization |

Loring Pond, which is situated within Loring Park, is divided into a smaller North Bay (DNR #27-0655-01) and a larger South Bay (DNR #27-0655-02). The lake is situated on the edge of downtown Minneapolis, east of Interstate 94 and south of Interstate 394. An augmentation well is used to maintain the water levels at Loring Pond.

Loring Park features a dog park, a bandstand, basketball and tennis courts, biking and walking paths, fishing pier, garden and picnic areas, a restroom facility, a playground, a community arts center, and a wading pool.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 698 -->
The parkland was originally purchased (30 acres) in 1883 and was named Loring Park after the first president of the Park Board, Charles Loring. The lake was excavated and enlarged in 1884. Additional land was purchased in stages and incorporated into Loring Park through 1902.

Several attempts were made in the 1970s to improve water quality in Loring Pond. An Olszewski tube was installed in an attempt to drain high-nutrient hypolimnetic water from the lake. The tube never functioned properly and was abandoned. The pipe was capped in 2014 in an effort to limit water losses from the pond. Dredging of the north arm from 1976 to 1977 also did not improve the water quality of the lake. Augmentation of the lake level with groundwater appears to have had a positive effect on water quality and continues today in accordance with a water appropriation permit issued by the MNDNR.

Further lake restoration and park improvement projects were initiated in 1997. The lake bottom was sealed, lined, and vented. An aerator was installed to help prevent oxygen depletion during the summer months. Multiple vegetation restoration projects were completed throughout the park. In 1999, the shoreline was planted with native vegetation in cooperation with the MNDNR and the Friends of Loring Park. The native shoreline restoration provided a buffer strip for waterfowl management, protection against shoreline erosion, pollutant filtration, and improved lake aesthetics.

In 1998 and 1999, through funds provided by the MPRB and the city’s Neighborhood Revitalization Program and Friends of Loring Park, the lake bottom was lined to prevent water loss and the shoreline was planted with native vegetation. In 2007, the north basin was dewatered and the water level in the southern basin was lowered in order to accommodate dredging of the north basin to remove accumulated sediment and restore original depths in the channel between the two basins.

Dewatering for the North Bay dredging project lowered water levels in Loring Pond significantly in 2007. Storm sewer backflow entered Loring Pond several times in 2010 and 2011 during high-intensity rain events and the largest of these events can be seen as peaks in the level graph. Water pressure from storm sewer backflow caused the Loring Pond outlet to deteriorate. In 2011, MPRB staff repaired the cement at the base of the outlet and reinstalled the outlet board. Water levels were manipulated throughout 2014, with water being allowed to drain down throughout the summer and then raised to the top of the outlet wall as part of a cattail removal project. Water levels were then kept near the top of the outlet from 2015 through 2017 by using the augmentation well in accordance with a water appropriate permit issued by the MNDNR.

### Loring Pond Wetland Fringe

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 699 -->
Loring Pond was monitored by MWMO for water quality and E. coli in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, the MPRB took over this monitoring.

Loring Pond is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Loring Pond, as summarized in Table 3.38.

**Table 3.38 – Loring Pond Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Life/Chloride/2014 |
| TMDL Status | Chloride: metropolitan-wide TMDL approved in 2016 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended |

Loring Pond (South Bay) was listed as impaired in 2014 in a metropolitan-wide TMDL study for chloride concentration with an initial target TMDL completion in 2015. The U.S. EPA approved the metropolitan-wide TCMA TMDL on June 9, 2016. The MPCA partnered with local and state experts in the TCMA to create a plan for reduction of chloride concentration in water through management of salt use on land, as summarized in the TCMA Chloride Management Plan (February 2016). This plan identifies salts (primarily sodium chloride) applied to paved surfaces in the winter as the major source for chloride in waters and water softeners in rural areas as a secondary source.

### Powderhorn Lake

The physical characteristics of Powderhorn Lake are summarized in Table 3.39.

**Table 3.39 – Powderhorn Lake Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Powderhorn Lake |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27001400 |
| DNR Classification | General Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Mississippi River |
| Surface Area | 12 acres |
| Depth – mean | 4 feet |
| Depth – maximum | 20 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 323 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Powderhorn Lake is a relatively shallow, landlocked lake surrounded by parkland (Powderhorn Park) and is situated in Minneapolis between Interstate 35W and Hiawatha Avenue, south of East Lake Street.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 700 -->
Recreational activities available at the park include several sports courts, a fishing pier, gardens, picnic areas with grills, ice skating rink, playground, a wading pool, and walking path.

The lake was named after its shape, which resembled a cow horn historically used to carry gunpowder. The MPRB purchased 38 acres of parkland in 1890. Powderhorn Park was expanded the next year with the addition of 20 acres. The lake was deepened by dredging in 1895, which resulted in the creation of a half-acre island. A playground was added in 1907. In 1925, the northern arm of the lake was filled in due to the low water levels, which had dropped significantly since the early 1900s. A shore protection wall was installed along part of the lake in 1940.

Due to continued decreases in water levels, city water was pumped into the lake in 1963 to raise it by ten feet. A permanent pump station was installed to control water levels in the event that water levels are high. Pumped water is discharged to a storm drain that is tributary to the Mississippi River. Use of this pump to control the water levels in Powderhorn Lake was temporarily prohibited by the MNDNR because of the presence of Egeria densa, an evasive plant that had the potential to affect shipping in the Mississippi River. The restriction was lifted after successful eradication carried out by the MNDNR.

In 1975, an aerator was installed in the lake for summer operation to increase the lake’s oxygen levels to prevent fish kills. The MNDNR has stocked the lake with fish as part of the Kid’s Fishing Pond since 1980.

In 1995, a winter aeration system was installed.

In 1999, the City and MPRB implemented a restoration plan for Powderhorn Lake that continued through 2003. Actions included installation of five grit chambers near stormwater drain outfalls, native shoreline plantings, and alum treatment.

In 2004, the MPRB began annual spring installation of barley straw, used to control blue-green algal growth with mixed results.

In 2007, the MPRB began treatments to control Brazilian waterweed, an invasive aquatic plant. The treatment was successful, as documented by 5 years of MNDNR surveys.

Powderhorn Lake is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Powderhorn Lake, as summarized in Table 3.40.

<!-- page 701 -->
Table 3.40 – Powderhorn Lake Impaired Waters Summary

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Recreation/Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators/2002/2018 Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/2006 Aquatic Life/Chloride/2014 |
| TMDL Status | Excess Nutrients: De-listed in 2012, due to improved water quality Relisted in 2018. TMDL study not started. Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2007 Chloride: metropolitan-wide TMDL approved 2016 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Mercury in Fish Tissue: no municipal requirements Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended |

In 2002, the lake was first listed as impaired due to excess nutrients, specifically phosphorus. MPRB implemented ongoing annual barley straw treatments in 2004 to improve the water clarity. Due to an improved water quality trend caused by in-lake water quality management, the lake was de-listed for nutrient impairment in 2012. The MPCA and MPRB continued to monitor the lake for changes in lake water quality. Changes observed by the MPCA have resulted in the 2018 relisting of Powderhorn Lake for nutrient impairment.

Powderhorn Lake was identified as impaired and added to the Minnesota 303(d) list for mercury content found in fish tissue in 2006. Excess mercury concentrations have been found statewide and are largely attributed to atmospheric deposition. As such, the Minnesota lakes with mercury impairments have been added to a statewide mercury TMDL, which was first approved by the EPA on March 27, 2007. Powderhorn Lake is included on the statewide TMDL list with a target completion date of 2025.

Powderhorn Lake was listed as impaired in 2014 in a metropolitan-wide TMDL study for chloride concentration. The TCMA Chloride Management Plan identifies salts (primarily sodium chloride) applied to paved surfaces in the winter as the major source for chloride in waters, and water softeners in rural areas as a secondary source. The EPA approved the metropolitan-wide TCMA TMDL on June 9, 2016. The MPCA partnered with local and state experts in the TCMA to create a plan to reduce chloride concentration in water by management of salt use on land.

Native grasses were planted on the east and north hillsides in 1995. As part of a city-wide restoration plan, five continuous deflective separation grit chambers were installed in 2001, native plantings were included again in 2002, and an alum treatment was implemented in 2003. In addition, an aeration system was installed in the lake and a retaining wall was restored in 2002. Two-hundred (200) trees were planted in the park as part of the 2007 Arbor Day celebration.

The Powderhorn Lake Neighborhood of Raingardens project was a three-year community engagement project that began in 2009. Led by Metro Blooms, the project installed 125 raingardens with more than 229 community members involved and more than 70,000 square feet of impervious surface redirected to infiltration BMPs. This project engaged property owners in the Central and Powderhorn Park neighborhoods to install and maintain raingardens on their property, demonstrating that communities can directly impact local water quality by using native plants and sound landscape practices.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 702 -->
# Ryan Lake

The physical characteristics of Ryan Lake are summarized in Table 3.41.

**Table 3.41 – Ryan Lake Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Ryan Lake |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27005800 |
| DNR Classification | Recreational Development |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Ryan Creek |
| Surface Area | 15 acres |
| Depth – mean | Unknown |
| Depth – maximum | 33 feet |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 61 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission |

Ryan Lake is a mesotrophic lake located in north Minneapolis adjacent to the boundary between Robbinsdale and Minneapolis. Highway 100 is located to the northwest, a railroad corridor (Canadian Pacific Railway) is immediately north of the lake, and Shingle Creek runs farther to the northeast. The North Twin, Middle Twin, and South Twin Lakes (collectively known as Twin Lake) are located to the west. Twin Lake and Ryan Lake are connected within Robbinsdale by Ryan Creek. Ryan Lake is the last lake in what is considered the Twin Lakes Chain of Lakes. Ryan Lake discharges to Ryan Creek and thence to Shingle Creek.

The west and south shores of the lake are owned by private residents, and the MPRB manages publicly held land on the eastern shore. In 2006, a new public dock was installed on the eastern side and a small rain garden was constructed. The MNDNR stocked fish in the lake from 2004 through 2014.

Ryan Lake is occasionally monitored by volunteers organized through the Metropolitan Council’s Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) program.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Ryan Lake, as summarized in Table 3.42.

**Table 3.42 – Ryan Lake Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Recreation/Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators/2002 (DE-LISTED in 2014) |
| TMDL Status | Excess Nutrients: TMDL study approved in 2007 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Excess Nutrients: ongoing monitoring |

Ryan Lake was identified as impaired with excess nutrients, specifically phosphorus, along with the Twin Lakes in 2002. The TMDL study report of the Twin and Ryan Lakes was approved by the EPA on November 9, 2007, and the associated implementation plan was approved by the MPCA four days later.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 703 -->
Although it appears that the total phosphorus loads was least in Ryan Lake among the Twin Cities Chain of Lakes, it still exceeded the state standard concentration limit (40 µg/L) by 4 µg/L total phosphorus. The TMDL identified the primary sources of phosphorus in the lakes as stormwater runoff, a degraded wetland to the north of North Twin Lake, and sources within the lakes themselves (i.e., phosphorus released from sediment and invasive aquatic pondweed). Specific implementation plan actions include strategies for all Twin Lake chain lakes and strategies specific to Ryan Lake. Mitigation strategies includes evaluation of the adequacy of rules, additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) to decrease runoff and increase stormwater treatment, BMPs effectiveness monitoring, increased infiltration in watershed, increased frequency of street sweeping, aquatic plant surveys, and shoreline restoration.

For Ryan Lake, 15 rain gardens were installed in Minneapolis and five sump manholes were installed in Brooklyn Center in an effort to reduce external phosphorus loads. Additionally, a shoreline restoration project was completed in Ryan Lake Park in Minneapolis.

In December 2014, a Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL Five Year Review was provided. The report established a new goal of 19 percent reduction in Ryan Lake’s phosphorus loads. Ryan Lake achieved water quality standards for nutrient levels and was de-listed by the MPCA in 2014.

According to the TCMA Chloride Management Plan from February 2016, Ryan Lake is listed as a high-risk waterbody for potential chloride impairment, which means that the chloride concentration in at least one sample of water within the past 10 years was within 10 percent of the chronic water quality standard (207 mg/L chloride). Although the lake has not been listed as impaired for chloride, the TMCA Chloride Management Plan encourages high-risk waterbodies to follow proactive actions similar to those for impaired waters, as prevention for chloride contamination is easier than restoration.

### Sanctuary Pond

The physical characteristics of Sanctuary Pond are summarized in Table 3.43.

**Table 3.43 – Sanctuary Pond Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Sanctuary Pond |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27066500 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Lake Harriet |
| Surface Area | 11 acres |
| Depth – mean | Unknown |
| Depth – maximum | Unknown |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | Acreage included in area for Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska |
| Watershed Management Organization | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |

Sanctuary Pond, sometimes called Sanctuary Marsh, is situated between Lake Harriet and Lakewood Cemetery, separated from Lake Harriet to the southwest by Lake Harriet Parkway. Sanctuary Pond is located within the Thomas Sadler Roberts Bird Sanctuary. Catch basins in Lakewood Cemetery and along

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 704 -->
Lake Harriet Parkway discharge into the pond. The pond and adjacent wetlands are monitored by the Hennepin County Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP).

In 1958, the pond was dredged for fish spawning and a pump building was constructed with a pipeline installed under Lake Harriet Parkway to provide water from Lake Harriet to the pond. By 1987, the pond was expanded and a screen was placed on the pipe connecting to Lake Harriet to prevent fish from entering the pond from the lake. The fish hatchery and pumps are no longer in operation.

Two additional ponds were dredged to the west of Sanctuary Pond in 1991 and 1992.

In 2008, as part of the city’s stormwater and rain-leader disconnect program, Lakewood Cemetery to the north disconnected its stormwater connections to the sanitary sewer system and redirected the runoff to Sanctuary Pond.

### Spring Lake
The physical characteristics of Spring Lake are summarized in Table 3.44.

**Table 3.44 – Spring Lake Characteristics**

| River/Stream | Spring Lake |
| :--- | :--- |
| DNR ID# | 27065400 |
| DNR Classification | N/A |
| Chapter 7050 Classification | 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 |
| Downstream waterbody | Bassett Creek |
| Surface Area | 3 acres |
| Depth – mean | 9.5 feet |
| Depth – maximum | Unknown |
| Watershed area within Minneapolis | 50 acres |
| Watershed Management Organization | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission |

Spring Lake is located west of Interstate 94 and immediately south of Interstate 394. Bryn-Mawr Meadows is located farther to the northwest from the lake. Spring Lake, the smallest lake monitored by the MPRB, has limited water quality information available. Seven floating biohavens (floating islands) were installed in Spring Lake in 2011 to act as a wildlife refuge; however, as of 2014, the biohavens are reported to be in poor condition. The lake overflows to Bassett Creek via a constructed storm drain.

Spring Lake is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Spring Lake, as summarized in Table 3.45.

<!-- page 705 -->
**Table 3.45 – Spring Lake Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Life/Chloride/2014 |
| TMDL Status | Chloride: metropolitan-wide TCMA TMDL approved by U.S. EPA in 2016 |
| Minneapolis Required Implementation Actions | Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended |

Spring Lake was listed as impaired in 2014 in a metropolitan-wide TMDL study for chloride concentration with an initial target TMDL completion in 2015. The EPA approved the metropolitan-wide TCMA TMDL on June 9, 2016. The MPCA partnered with local and state experts in the TCMA to create a plan for reduction of chloride concentrations in water by management of salt use on land. The TCMA Chloride Management Plan, completed in February 2016, identifies salts (primarily sodium chloride) applied to paved surfaces in the winter as the major source for chloride in waters and water softeners in rural areas as a secondary source.

## Non-Minneapolis Lakes and Wetlands Receiving Stormwater Runoff

There are 10 lakes located outside the municipal boundaries of the City that receive stormwater runoff discharges from the City stormwater drainage system. A full list of these lakes is contained in Table 3.46.

**Table 3.46 – Non-Minneapolis Lakes and Wetlands that Receive Minneapolis Stormwater Runoff**

| Name | DNR ID | Municipality | Watershed Organization |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Bassett’s Pond | 27003600 | Golden Valley | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission |
| Crystal Lake | 27003400 | Robbinsdale | Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission |
| Hart Lake | 02008100 | Columbia Heights | Rice Creek Watershed District |
| Legion Lake | 27002400 | Richfield | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Mother Lake | 27002300 | MSP Airport Unincorporated Area | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Richfield Lake | 27002100 | Richfield | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Silver Lake | 62008300 | St. Anthony | Rice Creek Watershed District |
| Solomon Park Wetland | 27068200 | MSP Airport Unincorporated Area | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Taft Lake | 27068300 | MSP Airport Unincorporated Area | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District |
| Wirth Lake | 27003700 | Golden Valley | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission |

A brief summary of these lakes and their identified impairments follows.

### Bassett’s Pond

Bassett’s Pond is located in the City of Golden Valley and is situated immediately north of Olson Memorial Highway (Highway 55) in Theodore Wirth Park. The pond is actually a series of deep pools that were dredged as part of the park plan created by Theodore Wirth, the first Minneapolis park commissioner. The pools are in-line with the main stem of Bassett Creek, which enters through the

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 706 -->
northern end of the pond. Although it has a unique DNR ID, it is managed as a widened section of Bassett Creek rather than a separate pond and does not have a direct contribution of runoff from a Minneapolis pipeshed. As the pond is in Theodore Wirth Park, land use in the area is mostly park and recreational use, with single-family and multi-family residences to the east. The BNSF Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway run near the pond to the north and east.

The chloride, fishes bioassessments, and bacteria (fecal coliform) impairments described in the Bassett Creek section also apply to Bassett’s Pond. No additional water quality information was identified with regard to the pond and additional information on the identified creek impairments is discussed further in the Bassett Creek section.

### Crystal Lake

Crystal Lake is in the City of Robbinsdale and primarily receives stormwater runoff from a 1,200-acre area of Robbinsdale. However, runoff from a 421-acre area in the City of Minneapolis also drains to Crystal Lake. County Road 81 borders the lake to the west and Lakeview Terrace Park is to its south. Crystal Lake is also located to the south of Ryan Lake.

Crystal Lake does not have a natural outlet. In the mid-1990s, the City of Robbinsdale constructed a pump station to manage lake levels when the water level is high. The pumped water is discharged into the Minneapolis storm drainage system at the intersection of Xerxes Avenue and 42nd Avenue North. The storm drainage system that receives the discharge is historically under capacity, which results in frequent on-street floods of intersections and other low areas. The depth of water in the intersections is worsened whenever the Crystal Lake pump station is in operation. The City Minneapolis is working with City of Robbinsdale on an inter-jurisdictional agreement that defines a pump station operational plan that minimizes flooding in the City of Minneapolis.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Crystal Lake, as summarized in Table 3.47.

**Table 3.47 – Crystal Lake Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Recreation/Excess Nutrients/2002 |
| TMDL Status | Excess Nutrients: TMDL study approved in 2009 |
| Minneapolis Related Implementation Actions | Excess Nutrients: urban/residential nutrient reduction strategies are to be implemented as opportunities arise. |

### Hart Lake

Hart Lake is situated immediately north of the Minneapolis municipal boundary in Anoka County, just north of the Hennepin County border. A 3-acre pipeshed area in the northeast corner of Minneapolis discharges to Hart Lake. Silver Lake is located to the northeast of Hart Lake. Hart Lake is located within and along the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) southwestern boundary. A map of the RCWD impaired waters inventory from 2015 indicates that Hart Lake is not listed as impaired, but Silver Lake is, and the Silver Lake TMDL identifies Minneapolis as one of the parties in the categorical WLA. No TMDL implementation responsibilities are assigned to Minneapolis.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 707 -->
### Legion Lake

Legion Lake is located in the City of Richfield, part of a series of lakes and wetlands that are outside the municipal boundary of the City which ultimately flow into Lake Nokomis. Legion Lake is the uppermost westerly lake that drains into Taft Lake, which is at the southwest quadrant of the Crosstown/Cedar Avenue interchange in Richfield. Mother Lake, located within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Airport, is the easterly, uppermost lake. Mother Lake also discharges to Taft Lake. Taft Lake discharges into Solomon Park Wetland, which in turn discharges to Lake Nokomis.

A 2-acre pipeshed area in Minneapolis discharges to Legion Lake. No impairments have been identified for Legion Lake, but Legion Lake is involved in the TMDL for Lake Nokomis. Legion Lake flows intermittently to the Mother-Taft-Solomon wetland complex described in the previous paragraph, which is connected to Lake Nokomis.

The City of Richfield, partnered with MCWD, has completed a Taft Lake/Legion Lake Water Quality Improvement Project in an effort to treat a large area of urban stormwater runoff that previously drained into both lakes. Although neither Taft Lake nor Legion Lake are listed as impaired, both lakes are involved in the TMDL for Lake Nokomis into which they drain. The project was completed in 2016 and includes a water reuse infiltration system, native prairie restoration and buffers, grit chambers (Legion Lake only), in-situ flocculation treatment systems (Taft Lake only), construction of the Richfield Parkway North Connection, and removal of Taft Lake Frontage Road.

### Mother Lake

Mother Lake is located at the northwestern corner of the MSP International Airport, situated at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 62 and Cedar Avenue, east.

Mother Lake is part of a series of lakes and wetlands that are outside the municipal boundary of the City, which ultimately flow into Lake Nokomis. Mother Lake is the easterly, uppermost lake located within the boundaries of the Metropolitan Airport. Mother Lake discharges to Taft Lake, which is at the southwest quadrant of the Crosstown/Cedar Avenue interchange in Richfield. Legion Lake is the uppermost westerly lake that also drains into Taft Lake. Taft Lake discharges into Solomon Park Wetland, which in turn discharges to Lake Nokomis.

A 3-acre pipeshed area of Minneapolis discharges to Mother Lake. A few remnant wetlands are present at the airport and nearby Mother Lake. The taxiways of two runways are present in the drainage area, which would be associated with vehicular traffic and airplane movement, but no maintenance, deicing, or fueling is conducted in this area. Richfield maintenance facility and MnDOT materials storage and maintenance facility, as well as adjacent Cedar Avenue and Highway 62 roadways, also drain into the lake.

Per the EPA Waterbody Quality Assessment Report online database and the MPCA 2016 Minnesota Impaired Waters List, Mother Lake is not listed as impaired. However, it was noted that Mother Lake, though not itself listed, is involved in the TMDL study for Lake Nokomis, which is directly downstream from Mother Lake.

<!-- page 708 -->
### Richfield Lake

Richfield Lake is in the City of Richfield, immediately southeast of the intersection of I-35W and Highway 62. Minnehaha Creek is located farther north. The Lake is surrounded by Richfield Lake Park. A 58-acre pipeshed area of Minneapolis discharges to Richfield Lake.

Richfield Lake was divided by construction of Highway 62, resulting in part of the former lake being separated to the northwest. The waterbody separated from Richfield Lake is now a wetland known as Grass Lake. The two lakes are joined by a pipe to preserve their former hydrogeology. Stormwater runoff and storm sewers from the highway drain into the lake and wetlands. In 1995, grit chambers were constructed at the end of the sewer pipes to filter out debris form water discharging to the lake and wetlands.

Per the EPA Waterbody Quality Assessment Report online database and the MPCA 2016 Minnesota Impaired Waters List, Richfield Lake is not listed as impaired.

### Silver Lake

Silver Lake is situated upstream of Hart Lake between the City of New Brighton and the City of Columbia Heights, south of I-694 and west of I-35W. The Silver Lake watershed is in the southwest portion of the RCWD. A 25-acre pipeshed area of Minneapolis discharges to Silver Lake.

There are two islands in the lake, one of which is accessible by bridge. Overall, the lake is shallow; however, there is a 47-foot deep hole, which is the proposed site for an in-lake alum treatment system.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments to Silver Lake, as summarized in Table 3.48.

#### Table 3.48 – Silver Lake Impaired Waters Summary

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Recreation/Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators/2002<br>Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/2012<br>Aquatic Life/Chloride/2014 |
| TMDL Status | Excess Nutrients: TMDL study approved in 2010<br>Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2008. Silver Lake retroactively added to the statewide TMDL approved study in an update in 2012<br>Chloride: metropolitan-wide TMDL approved in 2016 |
| Minneapolis Related Implementation Actions | Excess Nutrients: urban/residential nutrient reduction strategies are encouraged<br>Mercury in Fish Tissue: no responsibilities for local municipalities<br>Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended |

### Solomon Park Wetland

Solomon Park Wetland is in the Edward C. Solomon Park south of Lake Nokomis and north of Taft Lake, across from Highway 62. The Solomon Park area was formerly located within the City of Minneapolis. Recent municipal boundary adjustments resulted in this area becoming part of the unincorporated area of the MSP International Airport. Taft Lake was formerly located within the City of Minneapolis. Recent

<!-- page 709 -->
municipal boundary adjustments resulted in Taft Lake becoming part of the unincorporated area of the MSP International Airport. The lake is part of the larger Mother Lake, Taft Lake, Lake Nokomis complex located northwest of the MSP International Airport. The land was acquired by the MPRB in 2004 in a land swap and long-term lease with the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The Hennepin County WHEP is an ongoing wetland monitoring program that uses a MPCA-developed approach to measure vegetation and invertebrate diversity. WHEP monitored this wetland in 2005.

### Taft Lake
Taft Lake was formerly located within the City of Minneapolis. Recent municipal boundary adjustments resulted in Taft Lake becoming part of the unincorporated area of the MSP International Airport. Taft Lake is bordered to the north and northwest by Highway 62, to the east by Cedar Avenue, and to the south by Taft Park. Legion Lake is near the southwest of Taft Lake and Mother Lake is located to the east, across Cedar Avenue. A 139-acre pipeshed area of Minneapolis discharges to Taft Lake.

The City of Richfield, partnered with MCWD, conducted a Taft Lake/Legion Lake Water Quality Improvement Project to treat a large area of urban stormwater runoff that previously drained into both lakes. Although neither Taft Lake nor Legion Lake are listed as impaired, both lakes are involved in the TMDL for Lake Nokomis into which they drain. Additionally, Taft Lake is listed as a high-risk waterbody for potential chloride impairment, which means that the chloride concentration in at least one sample of water within the past 10 years was within 10 percent of the chronic water quality standard (207 mg/L chloride). Although the lake has not been listed as impaired for chloride, the TCMA Chloride Management Plan encourages high risk waterbodies to follow proactive actions similar to those for impaired waters.

### Wirth Lake
Wirth Lake is situated immediately south of Olson Memorial Highway (Highway 55) in Theodore Wirth Park in Golden Valley, west of downtown Minneapolis, and is managed by the MPRB. The BCWMC classifies Wirth Lake as a priority waterbody for management purposes.

A majority of the lake’s approximately 400-acre watershed is located in the City of Golden Valley and a minor southern portion of the watershed area, 37 acres, is located within the City of Minneapolis.

Wirth Lake is included in MPRB’s lake monitoring program. Monitoring results are published each year in the MPRB annual Water Resources Report. Additional information on MPRB water quality monitoring is contained in this Section 3, subsection City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts.

The MPCA’s 2018 Draft Impaired Waters List identified impairments for Wirth Lake, as summarized in Table 3.49.

<!-- page 710 -->
**Table 3.49 – Wirth Lake Impaired Waters Summary**

| MPCA Impaired Water Status | Impairment |
| :--- | :--- |
| Use/Impairment/Date Listed | Aquatic Recreation/Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators/2002 (DELISTED 2014)<br>Aquatic Consumption/Mercury in Fish Tissue/1998<br>Aquatic Life/Chloride/2016 |
| TMDL Status | Excess Nutrients: TMDL approved in 2010<br>Mercury in Fish Tissue: statewide TMDL approved in 2008<br>Chloride: metropolitan-wide TMDL plan approved in 2016 |
| Minneapolis Related Implementation Actions | Mercury in Fish Tissue: no municipal action required<br>Chloride: assessment of winter practices recommended |

## Wetland Inventories

The City of Minneapolis has several wetlands within its boundaries that are identified on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which do not receive stormwater runoff from the City-owned storm drain system and are not on the MNDNR protected waters list. These wetlands are shown on Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12. These NWI wetlands consist of many smaller wetlands that are located on either public or privately-owned properties. The primary purpose of the NWI is to track the extent and status of all wetlands in the United States. A secondary purpose of this inventory is to serve as a planning tool to determine if a wetland may be affected by a proposed project.

The MCWD also manages an inventory of wetlands which are greater than one-quarter acre in area. The functional assessment inventory, completed in 2003, evaluated the condition of each wetland and categorized into four management categories. This inventory is incorporated into this WRMP by reference.

The City uses MnRAM to assess all other wetlands in the City, those not otherwise inventoried by the NWI or by a watershed organization. MnRAM is a functional wetland assessment technique developed and maintained by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.

<!-- page 711 -->
Figure 3.11 – City of Minneapolis Wetlands (North of Downtown) – National Wetlands Inventory

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 712 -->
Figure 3.12 – City of Minneapolis Wetlands (South of Downtown) – National Wetlands Inventory

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 713 -->
# Groundwater

There are many agencies that manage aspects of groundwater in the City. There is no single source for groundwater data in the City; however, information is available at multiple locations:

* The City issues a Temporary Water Discharge Permit. This permit is short-term for construction purposes and does not allow permanent discharge of groundwater so projects must be designed and implemented in a manner that does not rely on permanent groundwater discharge.

* The Minneapolis Department of Health – Environmental Services maintains permits for construction or sealing of wells.

* The MPRB monitors groundwater levels at 8 locations within park property. Locations of MPRB wells are contained in the MPRB’s annual Water Resources Report.

* The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources issues permits to construct wells and appropriate groundwater for wells that withdraw 1 million gallons or more of groundwater per year. Permittees are required to submit annual groundwater data on the MNDNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS), which is available for download. Data for each permitted well is available to be downloaded.

* The MNDNR maintains the Cooperative Groundwater Monitoring network, which is an inventory of observational monitoring wells that tracks the static water levels over time.

* The USGS maintains a nationwide inventory of groundwater data, which can be found at the National Ground Water Monitoring Network. There are no sites in the City currently monitored by USGS.

* The MPCA collects information on the quality of groundwater in Minnesota.

* The Metropolitan Council, as the agency responsible for long-term planning in the Twin Cities, uses MNDNR data to develop a regional model of the groundwater that is used to assess impacts of long-term water usage caused by population growth and other changes.

Groundwater discharges into the municipal or regional storm or sanitary sewer systems are not allowed without first receiving approval from the City of Minneapolis. Temporary or one-time discharges that are anticipated to occur during construction must first receive a Minneapolis Temporary Water Discharge Permit and provide all related information and supporting documentation needed to issue the permit. If groundwater discharges are anticipated to occur long-term, then a Minneapolis Long-Term Groundwater Discharge Approval must be issued. The City’s Stormwater & Sanitary Sewer Guide provides information on permit requirements and supporting documentation needed.

City staff actively participate in working groups and committees that are established to coordinate groundwater management between multiple agencies and organizations. Currently, staff participates in the MPCA groundwater-surface water interaction committee that discusses research, policies, and practices related to those stormwater management practices that infiltrate stormwater runoff.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 714 -->
Additionally, the City is working with multiple local, regional, and state jurisdictions to evaluate shallow groundwater levels in the Lake Nokomis area of Minneapolis.

## Unique Features/Fish and Wildlife Habitats/Scenic Areas/Natural Resources/Key Conservation Areas/Ecological Health

There are opportunities with shifts in land use, private redevelopment, and public road reconstruction to collaborate between City departments and with external stakeholders to achieve the best water resource outcomes for the City and it’s receiving waters. Two plans have been developed that anticipate these shifts and propose changes that would benefit water resources:

* The MPRB, in cooperation with the MWMO, is in the process of development of an Ecological System Plan. Once complete, the Plan will recommend how to protect the ecology of the parks and the City through park improvement projects. As of the date of this WRMP, the MPRB Ecological Plan has completed development of goals and strategies. There is no set completion date for this effort. Additional information is available at the MPRB Ecological System Plan website.

* Hennepin County has created a natural resources interactive map that can be consulted for detailed information on land cover, ecological significant areas, soils, natural resource corridors, and other natural features for all parcels in the county.

Maps that note unique features, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, and scenic areas of the City that are contained in the Watershed Management Plans of the BCWMC, MCWD, MWMO, and SCWMC are included in this WRMP by reference.

# City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts

City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts

### Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

As property owner of the lake shoreline in the City, the MPRB is responsible for shoreline maintenance and has created an effective program of monitoring and management, which is specifically described in each affected waterbody. Scientists have analyzed water quality parameters since 1927. The current MPRB lake monitoring program, initiated in 1991, consists of an in-depth assessment of lake quality based on bi-weekly monitoring.

The extensive MPRB monitoring program includes monitoring of:

* Aquatic invasive species
* Aquatic plants
* Fish kills
* Groundwater levels
* Irrigation and augmentation wells
* Lake levels
* Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Monitoring
* Stormwater management practices
* Stormwater runoff
* Winter ice cover

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 715 -->
### Lake Monitoring

The Environmental Operations Section of the MPRB implemented a lake water quality monitoring program in 1991 as part of a diagnostic study for the Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership, which focused on Brownie Lake, Cedar Lake, Lake of the Isles, Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, and Lake Harriet. The monitoring program was expanded in 1992 to include Lake Hiawatha, Lake Nokomis, Diamond Lake, Powderhorn Lake, Loring Pond, and Wirth Lake. Monitoring at Spring Lake was added on a limited basis in 1993 and Grass Lake was added in 2002. Currently, only ice conditions are monitored at Birch Pond and Ryan Lake. Ryan Lake is occasionally monitored by the Metropolitan Council’s CAMP program.

The objectives of the MPRB lake monitoring program are to:

*   Protect public health.
*   Establish a database for tracking water quality trends.
*   Quantify and interpret both immediate and long-term changes in water quality.
*   Provide water quality information to develop responsible water quality goals.
*   Provide a basis for water quality improvement projects.
*   Evaluate the effectiveness of implemented best management practices such as ponds and grit chambers.

A list of the parameters and monitoring frequency is contained in Table 3.50.

**Table 3.50 – Schedule of Sampled Parameters for MPRB Monitored Lakes**

| Parameters | Sampling Frequency |
| :--- | :--- |
| Chloride, Chlorophyll-a, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Phytoplankton, Secchi Transparency, Temperature, Total Phosphorus, Soluble Reactive Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen, Turbidity | Once per Winter<br>Once in March or April<br>Twice per month May through September<br>Once in October or November |
| Silica | Once per Winter<br>Once in March or April<br>Once per month May through September<br>Once in October or November |
| Zooplankton | Once in March or April<br>Once per month May through September<br>Once in October or November |
| Alkalinity, Ammonia, Hardness, Sulfate, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Nitrate/Nitrite | Once per Winer<br>Once in March or April<br>Once per month May through September<br>Once in October or November |
| Escherichia coli (*E. coli*) | Once per summer for each lake<br>Weekly at public beaches |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 716 -->
# LAURI

The MPRB has developed a lake quality classification system termed LAURI (Lake Aesthetic and User Recreation Index) to provide a graphical snapshot of lakes in a non-scientific format. The MPRB uses the Trophic State Index (TSI) as a benchmark for comparison of water quality across all lakes in the City. TSI is calculated from a water transparency, chlorophyll-a values, and surface phosphorus values to produce a score from 0 to 100, although theoretically, the scale has no upper or lower bounds, with higher numbers relating to higher trophic status and lower water quality. In the Twin Cities metropolitan area, it is recommended that a TSI score of 59 or lower be maintained in lakes used for swimming. This recommendation is based upon the aesthetic appeal of the waterbody. Changes in lake water quality can be tracked by analyzing long-term trends in TSI scores. The MPRB uses TSI scores to assess changes in water quality and evaluate the effectiveness of restoration and management activities on the trophic state of the lakes.

The LAURI scoring system was created in 2003, refined in 2009, and again in 2017. LAURI considers five indices of water quality:

1. Public Health, as measured by *E. Coli* at public swimming beaches.
2. Water Quality, as measured by water clarity.
3. Habitat Quality, as measured by plant and fish diversity.
4. Recreational Access, as measured by availability and ease of public access.
5. Aesthetic, as measured by color, odor, garbage, and debris.

Data for the LAURI analysis is collected during regular lake monitoring activities and once per month during beach monitoring trips during the growing season from May through September.

The classification system consists of values for each indicator that result in a score for each of the five measures. Currently, the MPRB reports LAURI information for:

* Brownie Lake
* Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska
* Cedar Lake
* Diamond Lake
* Lake Harriet
* Lake Hiawatha
* Lake of the Isles
* Lake Nokomis
* Loring Pond
* Powderhorn Lake
* Wirth Lake

Further detailed information is available in the Annual Water Quality Monitoring Reports published by the MPRB.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 717 -->
### Beach Monitoring

The MPRB has 12 official beaches located on six lakes:

*   Wirth Lake (1)
*   Cedar Lake (3)
*   Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska (3)
*   Lake Harriet (2)
*   Lake Hiawatha (1)
*   Lake Nokomis (2)

#### MPRB Lake Monitoring

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board*

Prior to 2003, the City of Minneapolis Environmental Health Department monitored the beaches for fecal coliform bacteria. The MPRB began beach monitoring in 2003 and tested the beaches for *E. coli*, as well as fecal coliform bacteria. From 2004 to the present, MPRB Environmental Management staff monitored the beaches for *E. coli* alone as recommended by the EPA. Epidemiological testing allowed the MPCA to develop an inland lake standard which MPRB has followed since 2006. The inland lakes standard has a single-sample limit of 1,260 organisms per 100 mL and was accepted into rule during 2008 and has been used by MPRB since that time. The MPRB will temporarily close beaches whenever *E. coli* levels exceed these levels. Up-to-date monitoring information for each MPRB beach monitoring information is available from the MPRB.

### Zebra Mussel Action Plan

The MPRB Zebra Mussel Action Plan was prepared in response to the discovery of zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka in 2010 and the subsequent declaration of Minnehaha Creek, Meadowbrook Lake, Lake Hiawatha, and Lake Nokomis as infested waters. Lake Harriet was designated as infested in September 2017. The purpose of the plan is to identify organization-wide best management practices to eliminate the spread of Aquatic invasive species (AIS) through operational activities. The plan is updated to include new data and findings as needed. Key actions include:

*   Establishment of operational procedures and best management practices for MPRB staff that access multiple waterbodies during their work activities.
*   Purchase of an aquatic plant harvester so that all harvesting is conducted by MPRB staff, eliminating the potential of a contractor inadvertently moving zebra mussels into a City lake.
*   Provide education pieces and communication with watercraft owners who have permits to store boats at canoe racks and sailboat buoys.
*   Partnership with sailing organizations located on Minneapolis waters to maintain AIS Prevention plans that help to guide best management practices.

<!-- page 718 -->
* Require contractors and researches working in Minneapolis waterways to maintain AIS Prevention plans along with required MNDNR permits and certifications as part of the permitting and contract process.
* Installation of public education signs and kiosks at boat landings and launches.
* Inspection of all boats and water-related equipment accessing MPRB boat launches on Lake Nokomis, Lake Harriet, and Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska.
* Early detection monitoring of all City lakes for new AIS.
* Development of a comprehensive and adaptable AIS Response Plan in partnership with the MNDNR and the MCWD.

### Aquatic Invasive Species Management and Inspection
Purple loosestrife is a shoreline plant that, once established, will rapidly crowd out native shoreline plant species. It has been designated as an invasive aquatic species by the MNDNR. The MPRB works to control loosestrife through biocontrol, the release of beetles that exclusively feast on the loosestrife. This program was developed in the 1990s as part of a cooperative pilot program developed by the MPRB, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and the DNR. This biocontrol continues to be the primary management tool for control of purple loosestrife. The presence of this plant within MPRB properties has declined significantly since initiation of this program, although controlled areas of the loosestrife remain to perpetuate the beetle population. Purple loosestrife is controlled at Wirth Lake, Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, Birch Lake, Lake Harriet, Cedar Lake, and Lake of the Isles.

Eurasian Water Milfoil is a submerged aquatic plant that has been designated as an invasive species by the MNDNR. The MPRB manages the plant in certain lakes by mechanical harvesting.

The MPRB began their Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Inspections Program in 2010 with occasional DNR staffed inspections during prime use hours. The MPRB, understanding that prevention is the key to protecting Minneapolis waterbodies, further supported the Inspections Program in 2012 by enacting rules and allocating funding and staff for AIS protection efforts. These efforts included the 100 percent inspections requirement at boat launches on Minneapolis lakes, signage, ability to lock launches when inspectors were not on duty, and increased education efforts.

The MPRB has continued to support AIS prevention with allocated funds, enforced inspection rules at MPRB boat launches, strong partnerships with the boating community, comprehensive sampling and monitoring programs, and education campaigns. MPRB staff work closely with state and local organizations to be abreast of the most current AIS research, prevention, and management efforts.

The MPRB Inspection Program currently requires that all watercraft and water-related equipment accessing the boat launches on Lake Nokomis, Lake Harriet, and Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska between May 1 and December 1 be inspected by DNR-trained staff and certified AIS Inspectors. The launches are closed when Inspectors are not on duty. Inspectors provide AIS education and customer service to the public, as well as assist with early detection monitoring efforts at the launches.

The AIS Inspection Program is conducted by the MPRB in cooperation with the following partners:

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 719 -->
* MCWD will provide 36 percent of inspection program costs for 2018.

* Friends of Lake Nokomis monitors early detection zebra mussel samplers on Lake Nokomis.

### Wetland Health Evaluation Project

The Hennepin County Wetland Health Evaluation Project (WHEP) is a volunteer wetland monitoring program that uses an MPCA-developed approach to measure vegetation and invertebrate diversity. In Minneapolis, the efforts are coordinated by Hennepin County and funded by the MPRB and the City. This program has expanded to include monitoring of 34 wetlands in Hennepin County, of which six are located within the City, as listed on Table 3.50.

WHEP utilizes teams of MPCA-trained volunteers to collect and analyze wetland data to characterize wetland health. Hennepin County Environmental Services staff then cross-check, synthesize, and report the collected data back to the partner organizations and to the public. Sampling from the wetlands includes both vegetation and invertebrate data. Monitoring results are reported annually by Hennepin County.

The MPRB has sponsored WHEP volunteer teams to monitor wetlands within the park system each year since 2002. Every summer, several wetlands are monitored depending on the needs of the MPRB. Table 3.51 lists the seven sites monitored in 2016 as part of the MPRB sponsored program, including the Roberts Bird Sanctuary wetland, which is monitored annually as a reference wetland site for the City of Minneapolis.

#### Table 3.51 – Hennepin County Wetland Health Evaluation Project Monitored Wetlands (2016)

| WHEP Wetland | 2016 Invertebrate Rating | 2016 Vegetation Rating |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Diamond Lake | Moderate | Moderate |
| Robert's Bird Sanctuary | Moderate | Moderate |
| Heritage Park [^p719-a] | Moderate | Moderate |
| Wirth Beach Wetland [^p719-b] | Moderate | Moderate |
| Lower Wirth [^p719-b] | Moderate | Moderate |
| Webber Stormwater Pond [^p719-a] | Poor | Moderate |
| Webber Regeneration Pond [^p719-c] | Poor | Moderate |

[^p719-a] Stormwater wetland
[^p719-b] MPRB lake outside Minneapolis municipal boundary
[^p719-c] Natural swimming pond managed by MPRB

According to the 2016 report, the wetlands in the City appeared to have moderate to poor invertebrate conditions and moderate vegetation conditions. A historical summary of all WHEP monitoring results is available on an interactive map developed by Hennepin County.

### MPRB Golf Course Wetlands Monitoring

The MPRB golf course maintenance staff has received certification through the Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary Program for golf courses. This certification is a result of the MPRB following environmental management practices that have been developed by Audubon International. A component of this management is ongoing collection and analysis of water samples and visual surveys of aquatic and wetland vegetation. Results are published in the annual Water Resource Reports.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 720 -->
The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf (ACSPG) is an education and certification program that helps golf courses protect the environment, preserve natural areas, and protect wildlife through improve efficiency and minimize harmful impacts. Audubon International provides both a Site Assessment and Environmental Planning Form to provide guidance for certification. The areas used for the certification process are:

* Environmental Planning
* Wildlife and Habitat Management
* Chemical Use Reduction and Safety
* Water Conservation
* Water Quality Management
* Outreach and Education

MPRB collects both water and vegetation data required for their annual certification by the ACSPG. The ACSPG has a water quality and aquatic plant monitoring component as part of their final certification. Each golf course integrates these data (plant and water chemistry) into their final certification application.

## Source Water Protection – Minneapolis

In 1996, amendments to the Safe Water Drinking Act required source water assessments to be prepared for public water systems. The City’s own assessment, completed in 2001 and updated in 2009, provides information on:

* The area which supplies drinking water to the Minneapolis Public Works.
* An overview of why this source is susceptible to potential contamination.
* A description of the contaminants of concern.
* The sources of the contaminants of concern, if possible.

The City obtains its drinking water from the Mississippi River, and the Minneapolis Water Works intake is in Fridley. The area most directly connected to the supply and the area over which a spill or contamination could quickly reach the intake is termed the “inner emergency response area.” This area includes subwatersheds immediately adjacent to the Mississippi River from the intake upstream to Elk River – a distance along the river of 26 miles. The “outer source water management area” is conceived as an area where protection against chronic sources of contamination is emphasized or where periodic low levels of contamination occur. This management area consists of those subwatersheds immediately adjacent to the Mississippi River from Elk River to Saint Cloud. Notably, the furthest extent of the City “outer source water management area” generally coincides with the downstream portion of St. Cloud’s “inner emergency response area.” The final assessment area is the entire Mississippi watershed, above the Twin Cities, approximately 19,000 square miles.

The Source Water Assessment document lists potential contamination sources. These sources are derived from several state and federal databases. The overall intent of the assessment is to provide public information. In the document’s own words, “The assessment provides the community with a significant amount of information regarding where your drinking water comes from (the source) and

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 721 -->
what the risks are to the quality of that source.” The 2001 Source Water Assessment is available from the Minnesota Department of Health.

### Source Water Protection Plan
In 2002, the City partnered with Saint Cloud and Saint Paul to develop the Upper Mississippi River Source Water Protection Plan, a two-part document that delineates the source water protection area, assesses the susceptibility of contamination, and details the management strategy. Part 1, completed in 2005, delineates the source water protection area and analyzes its sensitivity and susceptibility. Part 2, completed in 2009, develops a specific plan to protect the City’s surface water intake from potential contamination. The plan is scheduled to be updated in 2019.

A portion of the City, roughly north of Victory Memorial Parkway, Weber Parkway, and Shingle Creek, falls within the Minneapolis Water Supply Priority Area A Source Water Protection Area, as delineated under the source water assessment in 2005. The area north of the line delineated on **Figure 3.13** represents the Priority A area of the City. The Minneapolis Priority Area A includes Shingle Creek and its watershed, even though the confluence of Shingle Creek and the Mississippi River is downstream of the City water intake. Because of the pooling of the Mississippi River due to the Saint Anthony Falls dam, the possibility exists that water downstream of the intake could travel upstream under certain conditions, such as high winds, and reach the intake. More information about the delineated source water protection area is available at the Upper Mississippi Source Water Protection Project MapFeeder.

In 2016, the City updated the Vulnerability Assessment and found that for the area of the City downstream of this Priority Area A, the City’s drinking water source (the Mississippi River) qualifies as “low” in the risk ranking scheme. The risks of source water contamination or drought would either have very low consequences or is very unlikely to occur. It was concluded that additional investment in source water mitigation measures or contingency action strategies to supplement or replace the source would have little to no risk reduction benefits.

<!-- page 722 -->
Figure 3.13 – City of Minneapolis Source Water Protection Priority A Area

<<FIGURE>>

Source: Upper Mississippi River Source Water Protection Project, MapFeeder, accessed December 5, 2017

<!-- page 723 -->
### Source Water Protection – Neighboring Municipalities

Five neighboring municipalities that rely on groundwater source for their potable water supply have identified Water Supply Management Areas of Vulnerability that reach into Minneapolis. Each municipality has identified the risk of well contamination for their water supply, as follows:

*   Bloomington – Moderate/Low
*   Edina – Moderate/Low
*   Richfield – High/Moderate/Low
*   Robbinsdale – Low
*   Saint Louis Park – Moderate/Low

As described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs, the City will update its Development and Redevelopment regulations and practices as required in the NPDES Integrated Permit. The updates will incorporate requirements specific to these Areas of Vulnerability based on the level of risk that has been identified by each municipality.

### Monitoring by Others

In addition to monitoring conducted by the City and the MPRB, there are numerous other agencies that have developed monitoring programs, surveys, and water quality improvement projects. A comprehensive list of these reports and activities is contained in Appendix E.

## Compliance with Water Resource Improvement Requirements

The purpose of this section is to describe the physical environment of the City, including detailed descriptions of all surface waters. As property owner of a majority of the shoreline in the City, the MPRB and the City manage a full range of land management, shoreline management, and monitoring to ensure the health of the City’s water resources. The MPRB’s primary focus includes public education, lake management, monitoring, shoreline management, and property management of parklands adjacent to each water resource. The City’s primary focus is on management of the stormwater drainage system: operation, maintenance, improvements, and annual reports. This management focuses on Stormwater Management Practices (SMPs), street maintenance, land management, ordinances, development and redevelopment controls, and public education.

The comprehensive projects and programs managed by the City and the MPRB as described in this section fully satisfy the surface water management requirements set by the NPDES permit, completed TMDL implementation plans, Metropolitan Council, and watershed management organizations. Requirements specific to infrastructure management are summarized in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment; those related to ordinances, education, and other non-structural activities are summarized in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs. City projects and programs are fully compliant with the identified regulatory requirements, as described below.

<!-- page 724 -->
### TMDL Mitigation Plans Required Actions

The City is required, through its NPDES Integrated Permit, to comply with the MS4-designated actions contained in the approved TMDL implementation plans. In the City SWMP, Category 8, Progress Toward Waste Load Allocations for Approved Total Maximum Daily Loads, describes the City’s overall requirements for compliance with TMDL WLAs. Table 3.52 summarizes the MS4 requirements for those surface waters that are either within the City municipal boundaries and/or receive stormwater runoff that is generated within the City. This table summarizes the requirements contained in TMDL Implementation plans approved as of December 2017. It does not include activities in draft TMDL plans nor information on TMDL studies have not been initiated.

<!-- page 725 -->
Table 3.52 – TMDL Implementation Plan Requirements and Activities for the City of Minneapolis

| Affected Surface Water(s) | Required Actions Under TMDL (for Minneapolis) | WRMP Reference | MS4 SWMP Reference | Other | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments** | | | | | |
| Shingle Creek | In-stream improvements:<br>▪ Shoreline stabilization<br>▪ In-stream habitat improvements<br>▪ Assessment of I-94 structure<br>▪ Create fish passage structure | Section 3 – Shingle Creek<br>Section 6 – Capital Improvement Program | - | - | Cooperative CIP implementation between MPRB, SCWMC, and Minneapolis |
| **Chloride** | | | | | |
| Shingle Creek | ▪ Upgrade deicing equipment<br>▪ Cover salt stock-piles<br>▪ Store cleared snow away from sensitive areas<br>▪ Operator training | Section 3 – Shingle Creek<br>Section 4 – Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance | Category 6 – Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations | - | Winter street maintenance practices include proper salt storage, detailed accounting of salt application, condition assessment after each snow event, calibration and maintenance of equipment, and ongoing operator training. |
| Bassett Creek<br>Brownie Lake<br>Diamond Lake<br>Loring Pond<br>Minnehaha Creek<br>Powderhorn Lake<br>Silver Lake<br>Spring Lake<br>Wirth Lake | ▪ Assessment of winter street maintenance practices | Section 4 – Stormwater System Operations and Maintenance | Category 6 – Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations | - | Winter street maintenance practices include proper salt storage, detailed accounting of salt application, condition assessment after each snow event, calibration and maintenance of equipment, and ongoing operator training. |
| **Dissolved Oxygen** | | | | | |
| Shingle Creek | In-stream improvements:<br>▪ Shoreline stabilization<br>▪ In-stream habitat improvements<br>▪ Assessment of I-94 structure<br>▪ Create fish passage structure | Section 3 – Shingle Creek<br>Section 6 – Capital Improvement Program | - | - | Cooperative CIP implementation between MPRB, SCWMC, and Minneapolis |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 726 -->
| Affected Surface Water(s) | Required Actions Under TMDL (for Minneapolis) | WRMP Reference | MS4 SWMP Reference | Other | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Excess Nutrients** | | | | | |
| Lake Hiawatha | ▪ Infiltration BMP installation on MPRB properties | Section 6 – Capital Improvement Program | - | - | Cooperative CIP implementation between MPRB, MCWD, and Minneapolis |
| Lake Nokomis/Legion Lake/Taft Lake | ▪ Water quality ordinance for redevelopment projects<br>▪ BMP retrofits | Section 5 – City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Code of Ordinances<br>Section 6 – Capital Improvement Projects | Category 5 – Post-Construction Stormwater Management for Public and Private Projects<br>Category 6 – Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations | - | Ongoing enforcement of stormwater management requirements for new construction projects.<br>Cooperative CIP implementation between MPRB, MCWD, and Minneapolis. |
| Crystal Lake | ▪ Provide focused education and outreach<br>▪ Implement BMPs as opportunities arise<br>▪ Perform pond maintenance<br>▪ Sweep streets twice annually | Section 4 – Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance<br>Section 5 – Public Education, Participation, and Involvement<br>Section 6 – Capital Improvement Projects | Category 1 – Public Education and Outreach<br>Category 6 – Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations | - | Ongoing maintenance of streets and stormwater SMPs.<br>Ongoing public education.<br>Strategic installation of new structural SMPs. |
| Silver Lake/Hart Lake | ▪ Neighborhood small scale water quality retrofits<br>▪ P-free fertilizer lawns<br>▪ Education programs | Section 5 – City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Code of Ordinances<br>Section 6 – Capital Improvement Projects | Category 1 – Public Education and Outreach<br>Category 6 – Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations | - | Ongoing public education.<br>Strategic installation of new structural SMPs. |
| Ryan Lake | ▪ In-lake monitoring | Section 3 – City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring | - | MPRB Annual Report | Long-term monitoring to ensure nutrients remain within acceptable limits. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 727 -->
| Affected Surface Water(s) | Required Actions Under TMDL (for Minneapolis) | WRMP Reference | MS4 SWMP Reference | Other | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Fecal Coliform (Bacteria)** | | | | | |
| Bassett Creek<br>Minnehaha Creek<br>Shingle Creek | ▪ Pet waste ordinance<br>▪ IDDE inspection and enforcement<br>▪ Storm drain maintenance | Section 4 – Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance<br>Section 5 – Public Education, Participation, and Involvement | Category 1 – Public Education and Outreach<br>Category 3 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination<br>Category 6 – Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations | - | Ongoing maintenance of stormwater SMPs.<br>Ongoing inspection and enforcement of IDDE requirements.<br>Ongoing public education. |
| **Mercury in Fish Tissue** | | | | | |
| Brownie Lake<br>Cedar Lake<br>Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska<br>Lake Harriet<br>Lake Nokomis/Legion Lake/Taft Lake<br>Lake of the Isles<br>Mississippi River (downstream of Saint Anthony Falls)<br>Powderhorn Lake<br>Silver Lake/Hart Lake<br>Wirth Lake | ▪ Statewide actions by MPCA | NA | NA | NA | - |
| **PFOS in Fish Tissue** | | | | | |
| Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska<br>Lake Harriet<br>Lake of the Isles | ▪ Regulatory action by MPCA | NA | NA | NA | - |

<!-- page 728 -->
# Watershed Organization Required Actions

Two of the four watershed organizations in the City have identified specific surface water actions that will require cooperation by the City, the BCWMC, and the MCWD. The MWMO and the SCWMC have not designated specific water resource actions for implementation by the City.

BCWMC requires its member cities to implement capital improvement projects upon order by the BCWMC. The City projects recommended in the 2015-2025 Watershed Management Plan include:

* Bassett Creek Main Stem Channel Restoration, Cedar Lake Road to Irving Avenue.
* Water quality improvement project in Theodore Wirth Park (undefined).
* Water quality improvement project in Bryn Mawr Meadows.
* Water quality improvement project in Bassett Creek Park.
* Dredging of sediment accumulated within Theodore Wirth Park segment of Bassett Creek.
* Restoration and stabilization of historic Bassett Creek channel.

The City will continue to cooperatively work with the BCWMC towards implementation of these projects.

Additionally, the BCWMC requires that member cities assess the need for a waterbody management classification system. The City aims to be consistent with water resource management in a manner that complies with requirements of all four watershed organizations and that does not create unique systems for regions or watersheds within the City. Therefore, the City opts to not create a separate waterbody classification system.

MCWD requires that member cities assess the potential for erosion at stormwater outfalls caused by excessive runoff discharge velocities. Outfalls identified as having high potential for erosion would require further assessment to determine whether erosion control or energy dissipation could mitigate erosion. The City is in the process of developing stormwater runoff models that will, when complete, predict the discharge velocities at all City outfalls. Once this effort is complete, the City will be able to determine which outfalls have the potential for erosive flows and require additional analysis and mitigation. The MCWD is in the process of development of a 2018 project, in partnership with the MPRB and the City, that will stabilize eroded banks and other erosion areas along the Creek. This work will be funded, in part, by 2014 flood damage funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Minneapolis will continue to work closely with all watershed management organizations towards protection and improvement of water resources in the City. These actions will include, but not be limited to, the sharing of information, review of draft reports, and reference to watershed studies when implementing local projects and programs.

## Prioritized Assessment of Water Resource Problems

The City’s role in water resource management is to manage its infrastructure in a manner that maintains or improves the quality of water being discharged to surface waters. Within the City of Minneapolis, the

<!-- page 729 -->
in-lake or in-stream water resource management is the responsibility of others, primarily the MPRB as property owner of a majority of the shoreline in the City. The City is working to implement an integrated infrastructure improvement program that maximizes public investments and minimizes risk to human health and the environment. Generally, compliance with NPDES permit requirements, including TMDL required projects, are given the highest priority. Capital improvement projects and sanitary/stormwater management programs that mitigate one or more of the following risks are also given high priority: prevention of the loss of life/personal injury, prevention of severe property damage, minimization of the release of raw sewage, and/or improvement of surface water quality. Projects and programs that mitigate multiple risks are prioritized higher than those that mitigate only one risk.

Additional information on how the City management its water resource infrastructure is contained in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment, and information of water quality programs is contained in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

<!-- page 730 -->
# Section 4 – System Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment

## Overview

The City of Minneapolis’ (City) sewer and stormwater infrastructure serves to protect water resources via the management of sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff. The City, as primary steward of this infrastructure, has developed a comprehensive set of practices and programs that serve to maintain the function, integrity, and capacity of these systems. This section of the Minneapolis Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) inventories the City’s built stormwater and sewage conveyance systems. Although the City’s sanitary and stormwater systems are predominantly independent systems, they were historically connected and, therefore, are managed as interrelated systems that work together to protect the City’s water resources.

The major components of each system, as used in this WRMP, consist of:

*   Sanitary Sewer System – Sanitary sewer conveyance infrastructure includes pipes, manholes, and lift stations. This infrastructure connects to the Metropolitan Council interceptor, regulator, and treatment facilities for final treatment and discharge to the Mississippi River.

*   Stormwater Drain System – The stormwater drain system includes stormwater drainage and conveyance infrastructure, such as gutters, catch basins, pipes, and channels. The system also includes flood control basins and water quality treatment structures such as wet ponds, grit chambers, and infiltration features (rain gardens, infiltration trenches, and tree vaults).

Development of this WRMP involved preparation of an inventory of the sewer systems and development of maps that is based on existing current data and from the City’s geographic information system (GIS) database, accessed July 12, 2017. Electronic versions of all GIS maps contained in this section are available to the public, to public agencies, and to watershed organizations upon request.

## History

The Minneapolis sanitary sewer and stormwater drain systems began in the 1870s as a single-sewer system where all sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff was collected into a single pipe system that discharged directly to either the Mississippi River or Bassett Creek. In the 1920s, the City adopted a two-pipe, separate sewer and stormwater infrastructure policy requiring installation of both stormwater drain and sanitary sewer systems for developing areas of the City. This policy remained in effect until the 1960s, when the City began to add stormwater drains in the pre-1920s single-

**St. Anthony Falls, 1865**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minnesota Historical Society*

<!-- page 731 -->
sewer areas of the City. This new program allowed for redirection of the stormwater runoff from the sanitary sewers into the new stormwater drains. As of 2017, this sewer separation work is substantially complete. The success of this separation effort is evidenced by the near elimination of the risk of wet weather overflows from the sanitary sewer system. Small pockets of direct stormwater connections to the sanitary sewers remain and are described in additional detail in this section. A more detailed description of the history and evolution of the City’s sanitary sewer and stormwater infrastructure is described in Section 1 – History and Overview of Minneapolis Water Resources.

# Infrastructure Inventory
## Sanitary Sewer System

**Brick Sanitary Sewer**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The City maintains a sanitary sewer system that is more than 140 years old. Because the City is fully developed, major additions to the system are minimal. As is typical with fully-developed cities, the City has a large inventory of older assets constructed during a period of rapid expansion. The oldest sewers in the City system are brick or non-reinforced cement pipe. In the 1880s and early 1890s, brick was used for large diameter sewers (24-inch to 96-inch) which were typically egg-shaped. The egg shape was oriented with the narrow section of the egg at the invert to efficiently convey sanitary flows. The larger section at the top of the egg-shaped sewer provided capacity for higher flows associated with stormwater runoff. These brick and cement sewers are still in operation today. For larger sewers, brick construction was abandoned in approximately 1930 with the emergence of concrete sewer pipe. Smaller diameter (12-inch to 24-inch), oval-shaped cement sewers were installed in areas with lower sewer flow contributions until approximately 1884.

In 1896, the City abandoned the use of cement pipe and began using vitrified clay pipe. Clay remains as the preferred material for smaller diameter sanitary sewer construction throughout the City.

As of 2017, the City, MPRB, and Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer system of shallow sewers and deep tunnels totals 835 miles of trunk and local sewers, which breaks down into 757 miles of City/MPRB sewers and 78 miles of Metropolitan Council interceptors. The interceptor system was originally built by the City and operated as part of the Minneapolis and Saint Paul Sewerage District from the 1930s until 1967 when it was taken over by the Metropolitan Council subsequent to action by the Minnesota legislature. By owner, the City owns 90.6 percent of the sewers, Metropolitan Council owns 9.4 percent of the sewers. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 present the types, ages, and total lengths of each type of the 757 miles of Minneapolis sanitary sewer system. Figure 4.1 shows the City and Metropolitan Council sanitary sewers, lift stations, and interceptors. Figure 4.2 shows the locations where the City sewers connect to the Metropolitan Council interceptor system.

<!-- page 732 -->
### Table 4.1 – Material and Age of Sanitary System [^p732-a]

| Material | Size | Year Constructed | Percent of System |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Clay | 6-inch to 48-inch | 1882 to present | 78% |
| Brick | 18-inch to 78-inch | 1870 to 1930 | 11% |
| Cement | 10-inch to 18-inch | 1882 to 1886 | 3% |
| Concrete/RCP | 12-inch to 102-inch | 1927 to present | 3% |
| Other [^p732-b] | 6-inch to 102-inch | 1931 to present | 5% |

[^p732-a]: Geodatabase data accessed December 30, 2015
[^p732-b]: Cast Iron, Ductile Iron, High Density Polyethylene, Polyvinyl Chloride, Corrugated Metal, Polypropylene, Fiberglass Resin Cement, combined materials, and unknown materials

### Table 4.2 – Sanitary Sewer System Infrastructure Inventory

| Component | Length/Quantity |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Pipes** | |
| Tunnels | 6.1 miles |
| Trunk and Local Sewers [^p732-a] | 748 miles |
| Metropolitan Council Interceptors | 78.3 miles |
| Forcemain | 0.5 miles |
| Pipe-in-Pipe | 2.4 miles |
| **Structures** | |
| Manholes [^p732-a] | 27,499 |
| Lift Stations | 9 |
| Regulators (Metropolitan Council owned) | 7 |

[^p732-a]: Geodatabase data accessed July 12, 2017

The regulators inventoried in Table 4.2 were installed in the 1930s to allow for direct discharge of the combined sewage/stormwater into the Mississippi River. The purpose of these regulators was, and continues to be, to prevent the backflow of sewage into basements and onto streets whenever the hydraulic capacity of the sanitary sewer is exceeded during significant rainfall events and to prevent damage to the sanitary sewer as a result of over pressurization that could occur during an intense rain event. Since the 1980s, the City’s efforts to reduce the volume of inflow/infiltration (I/I) has resulted in the closure of many of these regulators; as of 2016, only seven remain. The location of these seven regulators and tributary sewersheds are shown in Figure 4.3. The City and the Metropolitan Council have determined that the elimination of these overflow structures may not be feasible due to the potential for public health and safety hazards, in the event that an intense rainfall exceeds the capacity of the sanitary system.

<!-- page 733 -->
Figure 4.1 – City of Minneapolis Sanitary Sewers, Lift Stations, Intercommunity Connections

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 734 -->
### Figure 4.2 – City of Minneapolis Sanitary Sewer Connections to Metropolitan Council Interceptors and Sanitary Service Areas

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 735 -->
### Figure 4.3 – Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator Locations and Sewersheds

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 736 -->
### Public and Non-Public Wastewater Facilities in the City of Minneapolis

Hennepin County is responsible for tracking private wastewater facilities, and reports that there is one active septic system in the City of Minneapolis. Several privately-owned treatment facilities are located within the City and are permitted under by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These facilities maintain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit, or a Minnesota State Disposal System (SDS) permit. A current list of privately held wastewater permits in the City is available from the MPCA on the _What’s In My Neighborhood_ webpage.

### Service Connections

The City maintains 97,248 sanitary sewer accounts, as of December 31, 2016.

## Stormwater Drain System

The City’s initial use of a single-pipe sewer system resulted in minimal construction of a dedicated stormwater drain system prior to the 1920s. By 1930, four percent of the current stormwater drain system had been installed. The period of greatest expansion of the system occurred in the 1930s, associated with new development, and again between 1960 and 1990, as the City constructed stormwater drains to separate stormwater from the sanitary sewers. Table 4.3 summarizes the construction history of the stormwater drain system.

#### Table 4.3 – Age of Stormwater Drain System [^p736-a]

| Year Built | Percent of Stormwater Drain System by Length |
| :--- | :--- |
| Pre-1900 | 0.3% |
| 1901 to 1910 | 0.6% |
| 1911 to 1920 | 0.7% |
| 1921 to 1930 | 2.6% |
| 1931 to 1940 | 23.8% |
| 1941 to 1950 | 6.5% |
| 1951 to 1960 | 7.4% |
| 1961 to 1970 | 13.5% |
| 1971 to 1980 | 14.1% |
| 1981 to 1990 | 11.1% |
| 1991 to 2000 | 8.9% |
| 2001 to 2006 | 2.3% |
| 2007 to 2016 | 0.9% |
| Construction Date Unknown | 7.3% |

[^p736-a]: Geodatabase accessed July 12, 2017

In the 1990s, the City began installation of stormwater treatment and flood control facilities to further manage the quality of runoff or to resolve capacity problems, termed Stormwater Management Practices (SMPs). As of 2018, approximately 20 percent of the City’s stormwater runoff drains to a flood control or stormwater quality device.

The current stormwater drain system consists of the following major components:

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 737 -->
*   A drainage network that consists of street gutters, catch basins, manholes, pumps, stormwater drains, deep tunnels, and outfall structures.

*   Water quality detention facilities consist of wet ponds, dry ponds, and inline storage, used to control localized flooding.

*   Water quality treatment facilities, including stormwater ponds, wet vaults, hydrodynamic structures, sumps, grit chambers, and infiltration facilities, such as rain gardens, infiltration trenches, and tree vaults.

Table 4.4 summarizes the types and quantities the stormwater drain system owned and operated by the City. Figure 4.4 shows the stormwater drain system (note that Figure 4.4 does not include SMPs that are owned by other public agencies or are privately owned), and Figure 4.5 shows the location of City-owned SMPs. This includes the stormwater drain system that transferred to the City from the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) in 2000. This inventory does not include stormwater drain infrastructure owned by other public agencies, such as the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County, and the University of Minnesota.

**Table 4.4 – Stormwater Drain System Infrastructure Inventory – City and MPRB Owned [^p737-a]**

| Component | Length/Quantity |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Pipes** | |
| Pipes | 501.4 miles |
| Stormwater Tunnels | 15.9 miles |
| Forcemain | 0.8 miles |
| Pipe-in-Pipe | 5.7 miles |
| **Structures** | |
| Manholes | 19,581 |
| Catch Basins/Inlets | 25,308 |
| Detention Facilities (Public)/Storage Structures | 87 |
| Grit Chambers/Quality Controls | 126 |
| Bioretention/Infiltration/Filtration (Public) | 112 |
| Pump Stations | 26 |
| Outfalls | 419 |
| Connections to Other MS4 Permitted Systems [^p737-b] | 18 |

[^p737-a]: Geodatabase accessed July 12, 2017
[^p737-b]: Brooklyn Center, Columbia Heights, Edina, Falcon Heights, Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Lauderdale, MnDOT, Minneapolis/Saint Paul Airport, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Roseville, Saint Anthony Village, Saint Paul, Saint Louis Park, and University of Minnesota

<!-- page 738 -->
### Figure 4.4 – Minneapolis Stormwater Drain System

<<FIGURE>>

City of Minneapolis
### City of Minneapolis Stormwater Drain Systems

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| <img src="blue_line_icon" alt="City Storm Tunnels icon"> | City Storm Tunnels |
| <img src="yellow_line_icon" alt="MNDOT Tunnels icon"> | MNDOT Tunnels (maintained by City of Minneapolis) |
| <img src="red_line_icon" alt="Minneapolis Boundary icon"> | Minneapolis Boundary |
| <img src="light_blue_line_icon" alt="Storm Main icon"> | Storm Main |
| <img src="blue_square_icon" alt="Water Bodies icon"> | Water Bodies |

<!-- page 739 -->
**Figure 4.5 – Structural Stormwater Management Practices**

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 740 -->
### Stormwater Drain System Not Owned by the City of Minneapolis

Stormwater drain networks owned and operated by other public agencies are interconnected with the City of Minneapolis stormwater drain system. Cooperative agreements that govern the construction, operation, and maintenance are discussed in Section 2 – Regulatory Requirements, Goals, and Policies, of this WRMP.

Infrastructure related to non-City systems are described below and are not included in the inventories presented in this WRMP.

#### *Minnesota Department of Transportation*

MnDOT owns surface drains and deep tunnels that serve the interstate highway system. There are areas of the Minneapolis stormwater system that drain into these storm drains adjacent to interstate highways. For stormwater drains associated with trunk highways, the reverse is generally true – the MnDOT system drains into the City stormwater system. According to Minneapolis GIS database, the MnDOT storm drainage system in the City consists of 10 miles of deep tunnel, 74 miles of storm drains, 1,580 catch basins, 3,973 manholes, 15 grit chambers, and 14 outfalls. As owner of a stormwater drain system, MnDOT is subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase II stormwater permit requirements.

#### *University of Minnesota*

The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis campus, owns a surface drain and deep tunnel stormwater drain network that discharges directly to the Mississippi River. This system serves the original campus area of the University, an area southeast of University Avenue and 15^th Street Southeast. The newer campus areas drain to the Minneapolis system. According to Minneapolis GIS database, the University of Minnesota drainage system within the City consists of 1.2 miles of deep tunnel, 8.2 miles of storm drains, 95 catch basins, 618 manholes, 1 pump station, 12 grit chambers, and 18 outfalls. As owner of a stormwater drain system, the University of Minnesota is subject to the EPA MS4 Phase II stormwater permit requirements.

#### *Hennepin County Public Ditches*

Hennepin County is responsible for County Ditch 13, which is also known as Shingle Creek. The section of Shingle Creek from the City border with Brooklyn Center to approximately Humboldt Avenue North is designated as County Ditch 13, as shown in Figure 4.6. For purposes of water quality improvements in this Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP), County Ditch 13 is considered a public water. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), however, does not have jurisdiction to issue permits or otherwise approve any improvements to this waterbody. Permission to connect to, or construct, improvements along this ditch must be obtained from Hennepin County.

As a road authority, Hennepin County owns the gutters and catch basins system within its right-of-way and the City owns the storm drains. For the most part, this storm sewer system drains into the City stormwater system. As the owner of a stormwater drain system, and owner of the Ditch, Hennepin County is subject to EPA MS4 Phase II permitting requirements.

<!-- page 741 -->
### Figure 4.6 – Public Ditches in the City of Minneapolis

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 742 -->
*Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Public Ditches*

Since 1972, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) serves as the authority for all county or judicial ditches that exist within the area of their jurisdiction. Ditches number 29, 14, and 17, shown in Figure 4.6, all drain from the west into Lake Calhoun. Each of these ditches has been constructed as an underground stormwater drain and is interconnected with the City system. As owner of these ditches, the MCWD is subject to EPA MS4 Phase II permitting requirements.

If the MCWD initiates the process to abandon a County Ditch, the City would consider acceptance of the stormwater drain segments provided the sewers are upgraded to be equivalent to current City standards for maintenance, condition, and capacity. City standards that would apply include:

* Maintenance standards that require manholes and other structures to be accessible and maintainable using City-owned equipment.

* Condition standards that ensure the structure has a minimum remaining service life of 50 years.

* Capacity standards that require that the structure is fully capable of conveying the runoff from a 10-year rainfall event and that any flooding occurring during a 100-year event does not impact primary structures.

* Fully established easements and access to these easements where the ditch crosses private properties.

* Abandonment of the public ditch is in accordance with procedures defined in the Minnesota Ditch Law, Minnesota Statute 103E.811.

*Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission*

The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) shares with the City and MnDOT the responsibility for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the Bassett Creek culvert/tunnel that was constructed to convey the main flow of Bassett Creek within the deep tunnel system associated with Interstate 394. Section 5.1.1.3 of their 2015 Watershed Management Plan notes that BCWMC accepts responsibility for management and monitoring of their trunk culvert/tunnel system. This plan requires that the City and other tributary cities obtain approval from the BCWMC prior to altering the physical structure or altering the hydrology of the area tributary to the culvert or tunnel. Location of this tunnel is shown in Figure 3.9 in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment.

# Infrastructure Service Area, Capacity, and Design Standards

## Sanitary Sewer System

The City, as a fully-developed city, has an extensive sanitary sewer collection system that does not have any significant areas without access to sanitary sewers. Therefore, there is no need to extend sanitary sewers. If a unique parcel or development does require extension or alteration of a sewer, then the City will work with the property owner or developer to modify the sewers, as needed. Typically, the costs of new sanitary sewer construction where no sewer presently exists are assessed to the property owner in accordance with the City’s special assessments policies and procedures.

<!-- page 743 -->
### Interceptor Service Areas

Twenty-Seven (27) Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Areas are located within the City. These areas range in size from the smallest, area MN-305 serving 35 residents (3 acres), to the largest, area MN-344 serving 49,164 residents (5,137 acres), per the 2010 census records.

Each Sanitary Sewer Service Area was evaluated using the City’s geodatabase and census data to identify service area boundaries, land use within each area, and population. Table 4.5 summarizes the area and population for each area, as shown in Figure 4.7. Appendix G contains detailed statistics on year 2010 land use, population, and households for each Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Area. Appendix H includes population projections through 2040, also broken down by Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Area.

**Table 4.5 – Population and Area for Each Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Service Area**

| Sanitary Sewer Service Area | 2010 Population | Area (acres) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 7026 | 4,708 | 518 |
| 8255 | 28,822 | 2,427 |
| 8754 | 197 | 67 |
| MN-300 | 22,560 | 3,209 |
| MN-301 | 3,297 | 521 |
| MN-302A | 558 | 103 |
| MN-302N | 2,935 | 972 |
| MN-302S | 4,288 | 357 |
| MN-303 | 3,852 | 615 |
| MN-305 | 35 | 3 |
| MN-306 | 586 | 216 |
| MN-310 | 63,650 | 4,373 |
| MN-311 | 2,242 | 242 |
| MN-312 | 3,221 | 425 |
| MN-313 | 1,074 | 112 |
| MN-314 | 907 | 94 |
| MN-315 | 4,151 | 589 |
| MN-316 | 7,69 | 754 |
| MN-320 | 36,435 | 3,443 |
| MN-330 | 41,716 | 2,500 |
| MN-340 | 15,018 [^p743-a] | 2,203 |
| MN-341 | 65,913 | 4,755 |
| MN-342 | 478 | 47 |
| MN-343 | 2,287 | 230 |
| MN-344 | 49,164 [^p743-a] | 5,137 |
| MN-345 | 7,542 | 744 |
| MN-346 | 9,247 [^p743-a] | 979 |

[^p743-a]: Population and area does not include sanitary service to properties not within the City of Minneapolis municipal boundary

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 744 -->
Figure 4.7 – Sanitary Sewer Service Areas in the City of Minneapolis

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 745 -->
### Flows from Outside the City of Minneapolis

In addition to the wastewater flows from properties within the City limits, there are several connections to the sanitary sewer system from sources located outside the City. These sources are categorized into two groups:

1. Government-owned properties in the Fort Snelling area.
2. Individual properties that connect to the sanitary sewer on a border street.

#### Government Properties in the Fort Snelling Area

Fourteen agencies in the Fort Snelling area have agreements with the City of Minneapolis for water and sewer service. The primary contributor of wastewater is the Metropolitan Airports Commission, with 214 million gallons (MG) of wastewater discharged in 2015, which represents approximately 76 percent of wastewater flows from the entire Fort Snelling area. The second largest contributor is the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center with 55 MG, or 20 percent, in 2015. A complete list of agencies and 2015 wastewater flow contributions is contained in Appendix I. Copies of the interagency water/sewer agreements are available from the Minneapolis Public Works Water Treatment and Distribution Division. This area is shown in Figure 4.8.

#### Individual Connections from Outside Minneapolis

A total of 135 properties outside the City connect to the City sanitary sewer system on border streets. These are summarized in Table 4.6. These properties receive permits from the City for these connections and receive direct monthly water/sewer bills from the City of Minneapolis Utility Billing. There are no inter-city agreements that oversee these connections.

**Table 4.6 – Sanitary Sewer Connections from Outside the City of Minneapolis**

| City | Number of Sanitary Sewer Accounts |
| :--- | :---: |
| Brooklyn Center | 12 |
| Edina | 71 |
| Golden Valley | 16 |
| Robbinsdale | 4 |
| Saint Anthony | 18 |
| Saint Louis Park | 11 |
| Saint Paul | 3 |
| Total | 135 |

A complete list of properties that are outside of the City but connect to the sewer system is contained in Appendix I.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 746 -->
#### Figure 4.8 – Fort Snelling Agreement Service Area

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 747 -->
### Projection of Wastewater Flows
Wastewater flows in the City’s sewersheds were calculated in 2010 and projected to estimate flows through the year 2040. These flow projections are used primarily to identify capacity limitations in the sewer system.

#### Methodology
In 2016, a base year flow was developed for each Sanitary Sewer Service Area, based on year 2010 City water billing data. Water billing was divided into residential water use and non-residential water use; water billed to residential properties was assumed to be residential and multiple dwelling water use and water billed to non-residential properties was assumed to be commercial, industrial, and government water use.

Water use was then converted into wastewater flows by assuming:

* Water consumed in the winter quarter multiplied by 4 equals the annual residential wastewater flow.
* Non-residential water consumed over the year equals the annual commercial, industrial, and government wastewater flow.

Residential and non-residential wastewater flows were then assigned to each of the City’s 27 Sanitary Sewer Service Areas. Flow was allocated to each area proportional to the area’s land use. For example, if an area contains 10 percent of the City’s residential population, this area is assigned 10 percent of the residential wastewater flow. Employment was used for non-residential use and population was used for residential use.

For wastewater flow projection, it was assumed that per capita water use will not change in the future. Population and employment changes in each Sanitary Sewer Service Area were identified. This projected change in population and employment was obtained from the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) developed by the Metropolitan Council of the City base year 2010 and projected years of 2020, 2030, and 2040. The per capita wastewater flow was then applied to projected population for each area to identify the projected wastewater flows. An in-depth description of this approach is contained in Appendix H.

#### Results
Table 4.7 summarizes projected wastewater flows for each Sanitary Sewer Service Area through the year 2040. In general, flows are expected to increase the most between 2010 and 2020, and then exhibit smaller changes through 2040.

<!-- page 748 -->
### Table 4.7 – Projected Wastewater Flow for City of Minneapolis Sanitary Sewer Service Areas

| Sanitary Sewer Service Area | 2010 Total Wastewater Flow (actual gallons per year) | 2020 Total Wastewater Flow (projected gallons per year) | Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Total Wastewater Flow (projected gallons per year) | Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Total Wastewater Flow (projected gallons per year) | Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 7026 | 136,491,929 | 175,437,000 | 29% | 188,951,000 | 8% | 204,538,000 | 8% |
| 8255 | 850,071,695 | 985,062,000 | 16% | 1,027,382,000 | 4% | 1,072,247,500 | 5% |
| 8754 | 8,594,777 | 9,417,000 | 10% | 9,602,000 | 2% | 9,833,000 | 2% |
| MN-300 | 841,545,263 | 953,210,000 | 13% | 1,000,479,000 | 5% | 1,055,639,000 | 6% |
| MN-301 | 124,186,467 | 126,727,000 | 2% | 132,385,000 | 4% | 139,188,000 | 5% |
| MN-302A | 16,407,442 | 29,334,000 | 79% | 34,087,000 | 16% | 38,890,000 | 14% |
| MN-302N | 267,224,048 | 290,080,000 | 9% | 310,757,000 | 7% | 330,982,000 | 7% |
| MN-302S | 254,143,488 | 286,868,000 | 13% | 312,134,000 | 9% | 338,409,000 | 8% |
| MN-303 | 84,771,450 | 94,283,000 | 11% | 93,332,000 | -1% | 93,581,000 | 0% |
| MN-305 | 737,942 | 821,000 | 11% | 813,000 | -1% | 816,000 | 0% |
| MN-306 | 22,924,447 | 25,231,000 | 10% | 25,218,000 | 0% | 25,445,000 | 1% |
| MN-310 | 3,991,834,316 | 4,517,466,000 | 13% | 4,822,333,000 | 7% | 5,129,809,000 | 6% |
| MN-311 | 48,572,405 | 50,598,000 | 4% | 49,912,000 | -1% | 50,144,000 | 0% |
| MN-312 | 68,544,613 | 74,332,000 | 8% | 73,155,000 | -2% | 73,142,000 | 0% |
| MN-313 | 20,786,199 | 22,982,000 | 11% | 22,487,000 | -2% | 22,254,000 | -1% |
| MN-314 | 17,569,888 | 19,432,000 | 11% | 19,014,000 | -2% | 18,818,000 | -1% |
| MN-315 | 91,962,610 | 103,571,000 | 13% | 102,644,000 | -1% | 103,06,000 | 0% |
| MN-316 | 153,611,717 | 169,658,000 | 10% | 165,779,000 | -2% | 163,987,000 | -1% |
| MN-320 | 1,117,081,852 | 1,254,908,000 | 12% | 1,341,470,000 | 7% | 1,437,683,000 | 7% |
| MN-330 | 1,294,416,457 | 1,457,336,000 | 13% | 1,534,396,000 | 5% | 1,620,415,000 | 6% |
| MN-340 | 350,392,715 | 414,714,000 | 18% | 435,105,000 | 5% | 458,722,000 | 5% |
| MN-341 | 1,460,362,781 | 1,515,996,000 | 4% | 1,537,297,000 | 1% | 1,572,909,000 | 2% |
| MN-342 | 9,802,359 | 9,998,000 | 2% | 9,641,000 | -4% | 9,544,000 | -1% |
| MN-343 | 50,846,946 | 54,496,000 | 7% | 52,374,000 | -4% | 51,454,000 | -2% |
| MN-344 | 1,079,983,010 | 1,120,847,000 | 4% | 1,101,962,000 | -2% | 1,100,797,000 | 0% |
| MN-345 | 155,329,505 | 160,343,000 | 3% | 155,557,000 | -3% | 153,880,000 | -1% |
| MN-346 | 186,171,528 | 203,117,000 | 9% | 198,961,000 | -2% | 197,704,000 | -1% |
| Total | 12,704,367,848 | 14,126,265,000 | 11% | 14,757,227,000 | 4% | 15,479,117,000 | 5% |

It should be noted that the total flows computed for 2010, which equates to a daily average of 34 million gallons per day (MGD), represents the volume based on water billing records. The total volume recorded by the Metropolitan Council for 2010 equates to an average daily flow of 44 MGD, as reported in Appendix A of the Metropolitan Council Water Resource Policy Plan. This difference of 10 MGD is an aggregate of wastewater that originates from multiple sources, including:

*   I/I contributions to the City sanitary sewers, as described in the following section.
*   I/I contributions to the Metropolitan Council interceptors that are within the City.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 749 -->
* Temporary groundwater discharges from remediation sites.

* Non-metered flows from 135 individual sanitary sewer connections that are outside of the City, plus the 14 agencies in the Fort Snelling area.

Insufficient information exists to assign the portion of the 10 MGD to these four categories of wastewater contributions nor to any of the 27 individual Sanitary Sewer Service Areas. It can be assumed that the total additional flows represent an average value that will not increase between 2010 and 2040. This contribution is likely to decrease as the City continues to identify and eliminate sources of I/I from its sanitary sewer collection system, as described in additional detail in the following section.

### Inflow/Infiltration Flows

Extraneous, clear water (i.e., non-sewage) continues to enter the sanitary sewer as I/I. As shown in Figure 4.9, the 2016 sources on I/I in the City system primarily consist of:

* Groundwater infiltration through damaged sewer infrastructure.

* Rooftop rain leaders with direct connections to the sanitary sewer system.

* Street runoff catch basins with direct connect to the sanitary sewer system.

* Foundation drain and sump pump connections to sanitary sewers that have been installed to prevent groundwater damage to basements.

#### Figure 4.9 – Typical Sources of Inflow/Infiltration

<<FIGURE>>

*Source: CDM Smith*

<!-- page 750 -->
In 1999, the City and the Metropolitan Council executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to conduct a combined sewer overflow (CSO) evaluation study. The study concluded that removal of all public inflow sources, such as catch basin connection, would not eliminate the occurrence of CSO events. Recommendations include a combination of inflow reduction, regulator modifications, and inline storage. The City began Phase II of their CSO program in 2002 with two primary goals:

1. Continued identification of unidentified street catch basin connections to the sanitary sewers and prioritization for elimination.

2. Identification and elimination of private sources of I/I, further described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Program.

In 2007, Metropolitan Council established I/I goals for all communities that discharge into their treatment system to further reduce excess flow that had created capacity problems in their regional interceptor system and at the wastewater treatment plants. Communities that were identified with excess flow, which included Minneapolis, were required to develop and implement an I/I reduction program.

The City reviewed its 1999 Phase II CSO program and concluded that the actions established in 2002 were on track to meet the 2007 Metropolitan Council I/I reduction goals. Additionally, activities were implemented in 2008 to further reduce I/I and document compliance with Metropolitan Council goals. These activities, which have continued through 2018, include:

* Flow meters installed at 50 sites each year.

* Smoke testing of sanitary sewers to identify unknown catch basin connections and damaged bulkheads.

* Review of record drawings followed by field inspections to identify cross-connections between the sanitary sewer and stormwater drains.

* Repair to manholes and bulkheads that were identified as damaged or with high rates of infiltration.

As a result, significant reductions in right-of-way acreage connections to the sanitary sewers have been accomplished, as shown in Table 4.8.

<!-- page 751 -->
Table 4.8 – Catch Basin Drain Area Removed from Sanitary Sewers

| Year | Acres Removed Per Year | Cumulative Acres Removed Since 2003 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 2003 | 16.8 | 16.8 |
| 2004 | 30.1 | 46.9 |
| 2005 | 8.1 | 55.0 |
| 2006 | 19.6 | 74.6 |
| 2007 | 208.7 | 283.3 |
| 2008 | 22.7 | 306.0 |
| 2009 | 37.7 | 343.7 |
| 2010 | 5.3 | 349.0 |
| 2011 | 86.2 | 435.2 |
| 2012 | 12.2 | 447.4 |
| 2013 | 32.3 | 479.7 |
| 2014 | 44.2 | 523.9 |
| 2015 | 19.2 | 543.1 |
| 2016 | 13.2 | 556.3 |

The success of the City programs and policies aimed at elimination of catch basin and rooftop connections (described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs) to the sanitary sewer system are evident in the reduction of total annual volume of CSO discharge at the seven CSO regulators. Figure 4.10 shows that there has been no CSO discharges to the Mississippi River since 2006 that were caused by rainfall events. The event in 2010 was determined to be due to infrastructure condition, not a lack of sanitary sewer capacity.

<!-- page 752 -->
### Figure 4.10 – Combined Sewer Overflow Volume and Precipitation, 1984 to 2016

<<FIGURE>>

Source: Minneapolis Public Works, Division of Surface Water and Sewers

Efforts to eliminate stormwater runoff connections to the sanitary sewers will persist as the City continues to identify catch basin and other sources of clear water to the sanitary sewers.

In March 2018, the City and the Metropolitan Council executed another MOU to direct their future efforts to coordinate the study of and investment in their connected sanitary sewer infrastructure. Consistent with the MOU, the City and the Metropolitan Council are initiating a comprehensive study of the City and the Metropolitan Council sanitary systems. The goals of that study, which will be completed during multiple phases, include identifying areas in the City with high I/I that contribute to increased risk of CSO events and highlighting how these areas related to areas where the Metropolitan Council’s system is capacity limited. Areas identified as having I/I that contributes to risk of CSO and limited capacity will be prioritized for future investment by the City and the Metropolitan Council. Additionally, the study will evaluate the cost/benefit of alternatives to reduce the risk of CSOs, reduce I/I, and increase capacity. Alternatives to be studies include making potential changes to the remaining regulators in the City.

Efforts by the City and Metropolitan Council through 2017 are published annually in the CSO Annual Report. Beginning in 2019 for calendar year 2018, the City will issue a single CSO/Stormwater annual report.

<!-- page 753 -->
### Trunk Sewer Design Capacity

Generally, the trunk sewers in the City are defined as those sewers that convey flow from the local sewers to the Metropolitan Council interceptors. As described in previous sections, the City’s trunk sewer system was designed as a single-pipe, combined sewer system. As a result of efforts to disconnect stormwater runoff from the sanitary sewer, much of the current sanitary sewer system is oversized for sewer flows. Specific data on the capacity and flow projections for all trunk sewers are contained in Appendix H.

### Stormwater Drain System Capacity

The City has a fully developed stormwater drain system that captures and conveys runoff to the surface waters, as described in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment. The system continues to expand, as needed, based on these primary needs:

*   Extension of a stormwater drain to capture the runoff from catch basins and/or roof drains formerly connected to the sanitary sewer.
*   Extension of a stormwater drain to access a new stormwater service connection to accommodate changes or redevelopment of a private property.
*   Installation of a relief stormwater drain or stormwater storage area to resolve ongoing street and property flooding caused by insufficient capacity of the system.

### Stormwater Pipeshed Area Inventory

The 419 stormwater outfalls inventoried in Table 4.9 discharge stormwater runoff to the 22 lakes, four streams, and the Mississippi River, as described in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment. Note that this table includes only those surface waters that receive stormwater runoff from the Minneapolis stormwater drainage system, which does not include all surface waters in the City. Figure 4.11 shows all stormwater pipeshed areas in the City. Also note that these pipeshed areas represent the area drained by the Minneapolis stormwater catch basins, pipes, and outfalls, which is not the total drainage area for the waterbodies inventoried in Section 3. The pipeshed areas for each of these stormwater outfalls was initially delineated in 1991 to comply with the EPA stormwater regulations described in Section 2 – Regulatory Requirements, Goals, and Policies. Since that time, areas and impervious surface percentages have been adjusted as necessary to reflect updated information or to accommodate changes caused by a construction project. The information contained in this WRMP is based on a comprehensive review and update of the City’s delineation that was completed in 2018. Therefore, there may be some significant changes when compared to the pipesheds reported in the 2006 Local Surface Water Management Plan. Appendix J contains this detailed inventory of the updated delineated areas, including the land use and total pipeshed area for each stormwater outfall.

<!-- page 754 -->
### Table 4.9 – City of Minneapolis Stormwater Pipesheds

| Surface Water | Stormwater Runoff Pipeshed Area (acres) | Pipesheds (count) |
| :--- | :---: | :---: |
| Bassett Creek | 1,493 | 20 |
| Birch Pond [^p754-a] | 16 | 1 |
| Brownie Lake | 66 | 5 |
| Cedar Lake | 216 | 10 |
| Crystal Lake [^p754-a] | 421 | 1 |
| Diamond Lake | 635 | 11 |
| Grass Lake | 318 | 10 |
| Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska | 1,188 | 25 |
| Lake Harriet | 1,097 | 21 |
| Hart Lake [^p754-a] | 3 | 1 |
| Lake Hiawatha | 1,217 | 6 |
| Lake of the Isles | 689 | 20 |
| Lake Nokomis | 652 | 13 |
| Legion Lake [^p754-a] | 2 | 1 |
| Loring Lake | 7 | 3 |
| Minnehaha Creek | 3,061 | 116 |
| Mississippi River | 19,736 | 141 |
| Mother Lake [^p754-a] | 3 | 1 |
| Powderhorn Lake | 278 | 5 |
| Richfield Lake [^p754-a] | 58 | 2 |
| Ryan Lake | 56 | 1 |
| Shingle Creek | 1,378 | 38 |
| Silver Lake [^p754-a] | 25 | 1 |
| Spring Lake | 39 | 3 |
| Taft Lake [^p754-a] | 139 | 2 |
| Wirth Lake [^p754-a] | 37 | 2 |

[^p754-a]: Waterbodies located outside of the City of Minneapolis

<!-- page 755 -->
Figure 4.11 – City of Minneapolis Stormwater Runoff Pipeshed Areas

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 756 -->
Note that nearly all stormwater pipesheds drain to surface waters that are within the City. The exceptions are for a pipeshed that drains to Crystal Lake in the City of Robbinsdale (1), Hart Lake in the City of Columbia Heights (1), Silver Lake in the Village of Saint Anthony (1), Legion Lake in the City of Richfield (1), and Richfield Lake in the City of Richfield (0). These pipesheds are inventoried in this WRMP; Section 3 does not include these lakes outside the municipal boundaries of the City of Minneapolis.

There are no significant land-locked pipeshed areas; however, very small pockets of privately-owned land-locked areas exist that are not inventoried by the City. Land-locked waterbodies, including Loring Pond and Powderhorn Lake, are inventoried in Section 3 – Land and Surface Water Inventory and Assessment.

### Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards
The primary function of the stormwater drain system is to convey the peak flows generated by storm events is to prevent damage to infrastructure and private properties. The current stormwater drain criteria, effective for projects constructed in 2016 and later, considers:

* Rainfall depths based on Minneapolis-based Atlas 14 precipitation with MSE3 rainfall distribution.
* Pipes sized to convey the peak flows generated by a 10-year rainfall event.
* The 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event cannot result in water ponding or flooding on streets.
* A 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event may result in water ponding or flooding but cannot result in flooding of an occupied structure.

The hydraulic capacity criteria for the City’s stormwater drains has changed since the 1930s, evolving from 2-year to 5-year to 10-year rainfall events, and from 1-hour to 24-hour rainfall durations. As a result, segments of the system have insufficient capacity and experience pressurization and/or surface floods during relatively small rainfall events. Over time, the City has corrected some of the most severe of these problems through the Flood Mitigation Program.

The City has developed a city-wide model of the stormwater drain system that is complete as of late 2017. The models will be used to assess capacity, discharge rates, and runoff volumes generated in each of the 406 unique stormwater pipeshed areas in 2018. This model will be used to identify capacity problems, prioritize flood improvements, and evaluate water quality improvement opportunities. Figure 4.12 shows the differentiation of the hydraulic and hydrologic (H&H) models that have been developed.

Once this assessment is complete, the City will identify the remaining areas of known flooding to determine the need for additional stormwater conveyance capacity or storage capacity.

The City of Minneapolis Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Guide contains hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality input parameters recommended for all models developed for the City.

<!-- page 757 -->
Figure 4.12 – Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Areas

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 758 -->
#### Stormwater Management Practices Design Standards

The City considers the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, prepared by the MPCA, to be the City’s approved design manual for structural stormwater management practices.

## System Operation and Maintenance Activities

### Sanitary Sewer System Operation and Maintenance

The City’s Public Works Surface Water and Sewers Division – Sewer Operations Section routinely inspects and maintains the sanitary sewer system to ensure the system functions properly. As of 2017, the City has implemented an asset management system that prioritizes sanitary sewer inspection and maintenance based on age of the system, asset criticality, and results from previous inspections. The City’s sanitary sewer system has been digitized in a geodatabase and each asset includes attribute information. This geodatabase, which is updated regularly, is used for the asset management system, locating, modeling, and planning/analysis.

The City is responsible for maintenance of the sanitary sewer pipes in the public right-of-way (ROW) and ensuring access for private connections.

The following inspection and maintenance procedures are followed:

*   Manhole castings are inspected, cleaned, and replaced, as necessary.
*   Manhole rings are inspected and replaced, and/or re-groued, as necessary.
*   Manhole structures are inspected and are repaired or replaced, as needed. Pipe inverts, benches, steps (verifying integrity for safety), and walls are checked. Cracked, deteriorated, and spalled areas are grouted, patched, or replaced.
*   Sewers with low flows and/or build-up of material in the invert are cleaned, as needed.
*   Lift stations are periodically inspected and monitored to ensure efficient and reliable operation. Pumps are maintained in accordance with manufacturer requirements and are assessed annually.

Sanitary sewer pipes are targeted to be cleaned every 8 to 24 months, depending on pipe size and method of cleaning. Areas with a history of heavy root infestation or high levels of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) typically require a higher level of maintenance and are scheduled for more frequent cleaning.

Routine inspections of the sanitary sewers have identified sewer segments that have defects that weaken the structural integrity of the pipe and/or allow for infiltration of groundwater which contributes to I/I flows. The City has opted to rehabilitate these pipe segments with a technique termed Cured-in-Place Pipe Lining (CIPP). CIPP is a trenchless method used to install a liner that results in a new pipe that is internally attached to the old pipe. The liner strengthens the pipe, plus joints and cracks are sealed to eliminate groundwater infiltration. A Capital Improvement Program that annually funds CIPP lining is further described in Section 6 – Planning and Implementation. Since 2010, this program has funded the lining of 53 miles of sanitary sewer, as detailed in Table 4.10.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 759 -->
#### Table 4.10 – Sanitary Sewer Cured-in-Place Pipe Rehabilitation Since 2010

| Year | CIPP Length (miles) |
| :--- | :--- |
| 2010 | 3.8 |
| 2011 | 5.3 |
| 2012 | 8.1 |
| 2013 | 7.8 |
| 2014 | 6.0 |
| 2015 | 6.3 |
| 2016 | 7.0 |
| 2017 | 6.5 |

The City is in the process of development of a FOG Control Program. The goal of the program is to aid in preventing the introduction and accumulation into the public sanitary sewer system of fats, oils, and grease from food service establishments and other industrial or commercial establishments generating wastewater that will cause or contribute to sanitary sewer blockages and obstructions.

## Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance

### Stormwater Drain System Operation and Maintenance

The Public Works Surface Water and Sewers Division – Sewer Operations Section periodically inspects and maintains the stormwater drain system to ensure the system properly functions, and as required after significant rain events. As of 2017, the City has implemented an asset management system that prioritizes stormwater drain and stormwater management practice inspection and maintenance based on age of the system, asset criticality, and results from previous inspections.

Generally, inspection and maintenance procedures include:

* Street maintenance staff inspect and clean basin grates on street sweeping routes during the non-snow months.
* Catch basin and manhole castings are inspected and replaced and/or re-grouted, as necessary.
* Catch basin and manhole rings are inspected and replaced and/or re-grouted, as necessary.
* Catch basin and manhole structures are inspected and are repaired or replaced, as needed. Pipe inverts, benches, steps (verifying integrity for safety), and walls are checked. Cracked, deteriorated, and spalled areas are grouted, patched, or replaced.

Specific information on annual maintenance activities for the stormwater drain system is detailed in the City’s NPDES Annual Report.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 760 -->
### *Catch Basins*

To maximize stormwater drain capacity, catch basins (also called inlet structures) are kept operational to allow runoff to flow into underground stormwater drains. Leaf and lawn litter are the most frequent causes of inlet obstructions. The City performs routine visual inspections and cleaning of catch basins and inlets to avoid flow restrictions and localized flooding. Additionally, the City manages an Adopt-a-Drain program that has volunteers removing debris from the catch basin. This program is described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs.

#### **Catch Basin Clogged with Debris**
<<FIGURE>>
*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

### *Piping*

The City’s stormwater drain system has been digitized in a geodatabase and each asset includes attribute information. This geodatabase, which is updated regularly, is used for the asset management system, locating, modeling, and planning/analysis.

### *Pump Stations*

Pump stations are periodically inspected and monitored to ensure efficient and reliable operation. Pumps are maintained in accordance with manufacturer requirements and are assessed annually.

### *Grit Chambers, Sump Manholes, and Sump Catch Basins*

#### **Grit Chamber During Construction**
<<FIGURE>>
*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

Grit chambers, sump manholes, sump catch basins wet vaults, and hydrodynamic separators are used to collect sediment before it can be transported to downstream waterbodies. Sediment originates primarily from road sanding operations, construction, and soil erosion. These features are installed in stormwater drainage systems as it is more cost-effective to vacuum sediment from a structure than it is to dredge from a waterbody.

Goals:

*   Public safety.
*   Prevent erosion.
*   Protect and improve water quality and ecological function.
*   Slow water movement, hold or convert pollutants, and enhance infiltration and evapotranspiration.

<!-- page 761 -->
- Conduct preventive maintenance for longevity of infrastructure.

- Control invasive species (non-native and selected native species) growth and prevent the production and dispersal of seeds.

- Create a wildlife habitat.

- Provide a neat and attractive appearance.

The City uses suction vacuum equipment to clean these sediment removal structures. For each cleaning, maintenance staff records:

- Quantities of sediment removed.

- Quantities of floatable materials removed.

- The presence of oil.

- The date of cleaning.

Substances removed from grit chambers are combined with debris collected by street sweepers and are properly disposed in accordance with state requirements and specific requirements set by landfill operators.

As part of ongoing work to address the bacteria impairment in Minnehaha Creek, the Public Works Department is testing new procedures in the operation and maintenance of grit chambers within the Minnehaha Creek watershed area. During routine cleaning operations, grit chambers are de-watered into the sanitary sewer system to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the creek. This decision was made after monitoring data from the Minnehaha Creek Bacteria Study indicated that there are elevated levels of bacteria found in the ponding water inside the grit chambers. These protocols will be implemented City-wide after the procedures are fully developed and tested.

### Stormwater Management Sites Inspection and Maintenance
#### Minneapolis Stormwater Management Sites
The City has made substantial investment in stormwater flood control and water quality basins as an integral part of its drain system, which has resulted in numerous flood basins, water quality ponds, and bioretention facilities (rain gardens, infiltration trenches). Frequent and effective maintenance of these facilities helps ensure proper performance and reduces the need for major repairs. Periodic inspections are performed to identify possible problems in and around basins, basin outlets, basin inlets, and side slopes. Maintenance and removal of sediment buildup is performed based on the findings of these inspections.

Vegetation at the stormwater management sites is important to their overall functionality, and the City uses a specialty vegetation management contractor to provide high-quality management and plant materials. Native plant materials are used throughout the system, and species that support pollinators are used at select locations. The City maintains stormwater management sites by the following inspection and maintenance activities:

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 762 -->
* Areas around outlets are kept free and clear of debris, litter, and heavy vegetation.

* Trash guards are installed and maintained over outlets to prevent clogging of the downstream stormwater drain. Trash guards are inspected at least once per year, typically in the spring, to remove collected debris. Problem areas are addressed more frequently, as required.

* Vegetated channel sections are inspected for signs of erosion, which is repaired by vegetation replacement.

* Emergency overflow outlets are provided for all basins, when possible. These are kept clear of debris and other materials and protected against erosion.

* Inlets are inspected for erosion. Where erosion occurs near an outlet, energy dissipaters or riprap is installed.

* Inlets are inspected for sediment deposits, which can form at the inlets due to upstream erosion. Sediment deposits are removed to ensure that design capacities of stormwater drains entering the basin are maintained.

**Stormwater Infiltration Basin in Heritage Park**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: SRF*

* Side slopes are kept well-vegetated to prevent erosion and sediment deposition into the basin. Severe erosion alongside slopes can reduce the quality of water discharging from the basin and increase the need for dredging of sediments from the basin.

* Noxious weeds are removed periodically from the area surrounding basins. Prescribed burns are used for this purpose at some locations.

* Some basins in highly developed areas require mowing. If mowing is performed, a buffer strip of 20 feet or more adjacent to the normal water level is typically maintained. This provides filtration of runoff and provides wildlife habitat.

* Basins are inspected to determine if sediment buildup is causing significant loss of storage capacity. Excessive sediment buildup significantly reduces the stormwater treatment efficiency of water quality ponds. Inspections occur after significant rainfalls.

* Sediment removal is performed where excessive sediment buildup has occurred. As a general guideline, ponds require dredging every 15 to 20 years or when the basin is approximately half full of sediment.

Some of the City’s stormwater management sites are conducive to providing additional ecosystem services (i.e., habitat, shade, air quality improvement, places for residents to stroll, sit, and observe nature). The Public Works Department is planning additional pollinator forage at its stormwater management pond properties. “Plants for Pollinators” neighborhood events have been held at the South

<!-- page 763 -->
43^rd Street and Park Avenue site (2016) and the Shingle Creek South stormwater pond (2017). A 2018 site is yet to be selected.

### MCWD Chain of Lakes and Lake Nokomis Stormwater Management Sites
Stormwater ponds and wetlands at Cedar Lake, Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, and Lake Nokomis were built as a partnership of the City, the MPRB, the MCWD, and the City of Saint Louis Park with funding assistance from the MPCA. These facilities are on the MPRB land and are managed by the MPRB in partnership with the MCWD. Specifically, the MCWD maintains the vegetation, provides sediment removal (as needed), and is responsible for major repairs at the Nokomis Ponds, Calhoun Pond, and Cedar Meadows Pond. The MPRB conducts routine inspections and provides daily maintenance services including litter removal at these ponds. Additionally, the MPRB conducts all pond inspection and management for the Hiawatha Detention Ponds, which are located within the Hiawatha Golf Course. The City maintains the storm drains associated with all of these facilities.

### SCWMC Stormwater Management Sites
The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission is initiating a field trial application of a new technology to help reduce bacteria such as E. coli in stormwater. Biochar, a specially engineered type of ground charcoal, added to iron-enhanced sand filters has been effective in lab experiments at removing bacteria in synthetic stormwater. The SCWMC is conducting three field trials to test the effectiveness of these filters at treating real world stormwater runoff by adding the substance to stormwater pond iron-enhanced sand filter benches, to filters placed in storm sewer catch basins, to a filter bed to treat flow diverted from Shingle Creek. Construction occurred in 2017 and effectiveness monitoring will be conducted through 2018.

SCWMC conducted a subwatershed assessment in Minneapolis is 2017. A subwatershed assessment is an intensive study of small areas of land to identify the best locations for small BMPs such as rain gardens, tree trenches, and bioinfiltration basins. This assessment will include the entire area in the City that drains to Crystal Lake in Robbinsdale. Results are expected in 2018.

### BCWMC Flood Control Structures
The BCWMC has adopted a set of policies that outline schedules, procedures, and responsibilities regarding the inspection and maintenance of the Flood Control Project (FCP) structures. These structures were installed as part of a multi-year, multi-phase project that was completed in 1992 through a partnership between the Army Corps of Engineers, MnDOT, and the nine-member cities of the BCWMC. According to those policies, the BCWMC will continue an inspection and maintenance program for the FCP structures. All non-tunnel structures are inspected annually. The double box culvert is inspected at least once every five years. The 3^rd Avenue Deep Tunnel, in conjunction with the MnDOT I-94 tunnel inspection, is inspected every five years and the 2^nd Avenue Deep Tunnel is inspected every 10 years. The BCWMC fully funds the FCP inspections, unless more frequent inspections or more complicated inspections beyond the currently used National Association of Sewer Services Companies (NASSCO) Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) is requested or required. Member cities, including Minneapolis, will perform initial responses to emergency situations, with the costs to be reimbursed by the BCWMC. Member cities are also responsible for the upkeep of road crossings.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 764 -->
The BCWMC Engineer submits inspection reports to the City regarding the condition and maintenance and repair needs for the FCP structures. The City is responsible for the work identified by the BCWMC Engineer and for the routine maintenance and repairs not otherwise identified by the BCWMC. The City formally notifies the BCWMC Engineer regarding all completed maintenance and repair actions. The inspection and reporting are essential to ensure that the Commission maintains its eligibility to receive federal funds to repair or replace flood control project features in the event of a catastrophe.

Figure 4.13 shows the location of BCWMC FCP structures located within the City.

### Figure 4.13 – BCWMC Flood Control Structure Locations

<<FIGURE>>

### Street Maintenance

In accordance with EPA regulations, urban street gutters are considered to be part of the stormwater drain system. Therefore, street maintenance is integral to maintenance of the stormwater drain and surface water systems.

#### Winter Street Maintenance Practices

The City of Minneapolis receives an average of 54 inches of snow per year (see Table 3.2 – Snowfall Monthly Average in the City of Minneapolis). Heavy snows require application of deicing chemicals (e.g., salt) on roads and sidewalks each winter for public safety. Studies indicate that an estimated 80 percent of the environmental damage caused from deicing chemicals is a result of improper storage and

<!-- page 765 -->
handling of the material (MPCA, 1989). Improper storage and overuse of salt increases the risk of high chloride concentrations in runoff and groundwater (MPCA Road Salt and Water Quality). High chloride concentrations can be toxic to fish, wildlife, and vegetation.

The City manages several storage facilities that are designed to meet MnDOT specifications for runoff control. Salt stockpiles are stored under cover to minimize potential for runoff and groundwater contamination.

The primary mission of the City is to provide snow and ice control in a manner that balances the environmental concerns, public safety, and cost. The City will continue to implement and improve upon procedures it has established for efficient application of deicing materials. Improvements are constantly being made to reduce costs and minimize environmental damage. Key best management procedures used by the City include:

*   Thorough accounting of materials applied to the roads each season.
*   Assessment of street conditions after each snow/ice event. Application of additional ice control materials are adjusted accordingly to avoid over-treatment.
*   Maintenance and calibration of ice control equipment to prevent excessive application.
*   Training of maintenance supervisors at the Local Road Research Board (LRRB).

Snow and ice control is conducted in a manner that balances the environmental concerns, public safety, and cost.

### Hiawatha Avenue Salt Storage

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

### Application of Anti-Icing Brine to Pavement

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 766 -->
*Street Sweeping*

Street sweeping is an integral part of the City’s surface water management system. Street sweeping greatly reduces the volume of sediment that must be cleaned from storm drainage structures and from downstream waterbodies.

The City performs two comprehensive city-wide street sweeping events in the spring and fall where approximately 1,100 miles of streets are thoroughly cleaned curb to curb. The spring sweep is intended to collect materials deposited over the winter such as accumulated debris and sand from winter maintenance activities. All 3,700 city alleys, totaling nearly 400 miles, are swept as part of the spring sweep. The fall sweeping program is a comprehensive street sweep and collection of leaves that fall in the street.

In addition to the two major city-wide sweeps, there are additional sweeping operations conducted throughout the non-winter months. The Chain of Lakes and Parkways are swept on a 15-day cycle between the major spring and fall sweeps. The downtown loop and business corridor is swept seven nights per week throughout the spring, summer, and fall, as weather permits. Other major commercial corridors around the City are swept on an approximate 15-day cycle and sweepers are also deployed on a complaint basis throughout the year.

The materials collected from street sweeping are disposed of two ways, based on the nature of the material. The predominantly inorganic materials collected year-round go to a construction demolition landfill site. The predominantly organic materials are disposed of as part of the City’s yard waste disposal contract in the fall.

Practices used to optimize the impact of street sweeping include:

* The City enforces temporary parking bans to ensure complete street sweeping.

* Pressurized water is applied to the road to push sediment and leaves into the gutters. A sweeping crew then follows behind the washing crew to clean the gutters.

* A tandem sweeping process is used. Air regenerative sweepers are followed by mechanical sweepers.

* Leaves are collected into piles and sent to a composting facility for disposal.

<!-- page 767 -->
**Spring Street Cleaning**

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

**Fall Leaf Collection**

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

# Condition and Performance of Sanitary Sewers and Stormwater Drain Systems

### Baseline Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Drain Condition Assessments

The City began a condition assessment program in 2011 to complete closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection of all small sanitary and stormwater pipes. The goal of this inspection is to develop a baseline assessment of existing pipe conditions throughout the City. As of late-2016, 29 percent of the sanitary system and 72 percent of the stormwater system have been televised. It is anticipated that the baseline condition assessment will be completed by 2024.

The City has budgeted $6 million to rehabilitate or repair sanitary sewers in 2018, and $8 million for subsequent years. CCTV inspections are used to prioritize specific areas in need of pipe lining, repairs, and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is recommended in areas where sewers are either structurally failing, have excessive infiltration of groundwater, or have excessive root intrusion.

<!-- page 768 -->
**CCTV Inspection of Small Diameter Sanitary Sewer (left) and Visual Inspection of Como Avenue SE Storm Sewer (right)**

<<FIGURE>>

Credit: Minneapolis Public Works

## Deep Tunnel System Condition and Hydraulic Capacity Assessment

In 2004, the City developed a Stormwater Tunnel Management Plan. When the plan was developed, the City inspected approximately 15.9 miles of deep stormwater tunnels and assessed structural condition. This survey did not include the tunnels not owned by the City or assessment of the Old Bassett Creek Tunnel, which is inspected as a culvert by bridge inspectors.

To complement the inspections and evaluation of tunnel conditions, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling by the City was performed to determine the hydraulic loading to each tunnel system. The modeling used a simulated 100-year, 24-hour, 6-inch rainfall event over the area tributary to each tunnel system. The results were evaluated and correlated to structural conditions encountered in the inspections.

The hydraulic analysis showed that most tunnels are surcharged when operating. Based on this hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, it was determined that only four of the tunnel systems operate with no surcharge during the 100-year event. These four tunnel systems operate without surcharge because they are relatively short, have large cross-sections, and serve small drainage areas. The rest of the tunnel systems pressurize during the 100-year event. The effect this has on individual tunnels varies and depends on the tunnel’s structural condition.

By linking hydraulic results with structural conditions and action levels, the overall condition of each of the tunnel systems is determined. A 2012 re-assessment of all City stormwater tunnel systems was completed. A long-term inspection schedule based on the 2012 inspection results was established.

## Stormwater Management Practice Monitoring

In 2001, the City began contracting with the MPRB to conduct stormwater monitoring to comply with NPDES stormwater permit requirements. Between 2001 and 2005, the MPRB collected and tested stormwater runoff at sites in both the City and the City of Saint Paul. In 2006, the monitoring program was reworked to limit monitoring to four sites in Minneapolis, each one representative of a major land use type:

*   Site 6 – 22[^nd] Street East at Aldrich Avenue South (Multi-Family Residential).

<!-- page 769 -->
* Site 7 – 14th Street East at Park Avenue South (Commercial/Industrial/High Density Residential).

* Site 8a – Pershing Park (Parkland).

* Site 9 – 61st Street West at Lyndale Avenue South (Commercial/Industrial).

**ISCO Sampler Set-Up**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board*

ISCO flow recorders and automatic samplers are installed within the stormwater manholes at each site. Dataloggers record the rate of flow, and then trigger the collection of stormwater samples. Each site automatically uploads data via cell phone modem to a database server maintained by the MPRB. Each site could also be communicated with remotely using Flowlink Pro software to adjust pacing, enable or disable samplers, and to see if a sampling event has been triggered at each site. Automatic samples are collected spring through fall, limiting equipment damage due to freezing. Grab samples are used for collection during winter months.

Effective 2018, each sample is analyzed for the chemical parameters that are listed in Table 4.11.

<!-- page 770 -->
#### Table 4.11 – Stormwater Sample Analysis Chemical Parameters, Effective 2018

| Parameter | Abbreviation | Units | Sample Type | Frequency |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Chloride, Total | Cl | mg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Specific Conductivity | Sp. Cond | μmhos/cm | | |
| E. coli (Escherichia Coli) | E. coli | MPN/100Ml | | Quarterly (spring, summer, fall, winter) |
| Hardness, Carbonate | Hard | mg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Copper, Total | Cu | μg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Lead, Total | Pb | μg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Zinc, Total | Zn | μg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Nitrate+Nitrate, Total (as N) | NO₃NO₂ | mg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| pH | pH | standard unit | ▪ Field Analysis Grab, measured by multi-parameter probe | |
| Phosphorus, Total Dissolved or Ortho-P | TDP Ortho-P | mg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Phosphorus, Total | TP | mg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 771 -->
| Parameter | Abbreviation | Units | Sample Type | Frequency |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Solids, Total Dissolved | TDS | mg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Solids, Total Suspended | TSS | mg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Solids, Volatile Suspended | VSS | mg/L | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Solids, Inorganic Suspended by difference | TSS-VSS=ISS | | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Carbon, Organic Dissolved | | | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Chemical Oxygen Demand | COD | | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |
| Flow | | | ▪ Measurement | |
| Precipitation | | | ▪ Measurement, at 3800 Bryant Avenue South location | Daily |
| Oil and Grease ª | | | ▪ Grab | Quarterly (spring, summer, fall, winter) |
| Nitrogen, Total | | | ▪ Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through Nov.)<br>▪ Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. Dec. through March) | 10 samples per year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events |

ª *Pilot. If oil and grease is less than 15 mg/L in all quarterly samples for the first 2 years of the permit term, the **Permittee** may end oil and grease sampling at that/those site(s). If oil and grease is at least 15 mg/L in any quarterly sample for the first 2 years of the permit term, then oil and grease sampling must continue through the entire permit term.*
*mg/L = milligrams per liter*
*μg/L = micrograms per liter*
*MPN/100Ml = most probable number per 100 milliliters*
*μmhos/cm = micro mhos*
*Source: NPDES Permit MN0061018*

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 772 -->
The MPRB continued to monitor each of these four sites through 2017 and has collected 12 years of continuous stormwater runoff quantity and quality data at the same sites. Long-term monitoring by the MPRB, as presented in Table 4.12, shows how the concentration of chemicals in the runoff can vary greatly in any year. A more detailed description of the monitoring results for each storm and for each site is included in the MPRB Water Resources Annual Report.

<!-- page 773 -->
### Table 4.12 – Long-Term Average Flow-Weighted Annual Mean Concentration for Each Chemical Parameter Monitored in the City of Minneapolis

| Parameter | Sites 1-5a | | | | | Sites 6-9 | | | | | | | | | |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| **Year** | **2001** | **2002** | **2003** | **2004** | **2005** | **2006** | **2007** | **2008** | **2009** | **2010** | **2011** | **2012** | **2013** | **2014** | **2015** | **2016** |
| TP (mg/L) | 0.470 | 0.337 | 0.474 | 0.332 | 0.354 | 0.548 | 0.472 | 0.486 | 0.583 | 0.341 | 0.355 | 0.368 | 0.369 | 0.313 | 0.337 | 0.297 |
| TDP (mg/L) | 0.112 | 0.095 | 0.114 | 0.121 | 0.123 | 0.135 | 0.108 | 0.139 | 0.249 | 0.063 | 0.126 | 0.123 | 0.157 | 0.121 | 0.089 | 0.088 |
| Ortho-P (mg/L) | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | 0.179 | 0.097 | 0.194 | 0.129 | 0.109 | 0.093 |
| TKN (mg/L) | 2.21 | 1.60 | 2.10 | 1.94 | 3.48 | 3.54 | 4.43 | 3.22 | 3.61 | 1.53 | 1.74 | 2.00 | 2.34 | 2.40 | 1.68 | 1.72 |
| NH₃ (mg/L) | 0.494 | 0.722 | 0.346 | 0.918 | 1.74 | 1.64 | 0.970 | 0.966 | 1.64 | 0.666 | 0.922 | 0.719 | 0.747 | 1.00 | 0.262 | 0.430 |
| NO₃NO₂ (mg/L) | 0.398 | 0.423 | 0.496 | 0.382 | 0.448 | 0.638 | 0.496 | 0.582 | 0.755 | 0.414 | 0.498 | 0.397 | 0.402 | 0.937 | 0.396 | 0.290 |
| Cl (mg/L) | 37 | 11 | 587 | 40 | 18 | 91 | 412 | 139 | 803 | 60 | 213 | 14 | 72 | 205 | 229 | 12 |
| Hardness (mg/L) | nc | na | nc | nc | na | nc | nc | nc | nc | na | 48.0 | 37 | 41 | 41 | 30 | 32 |
| TSS (mg/L) | 116 | 83 | 116 | 70 | 108 | 156 | 180 | 148 | 121 | 107 | 104 | 101 | 95 | 123 | 87 | 90 |
| VSS (mg/L) | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | 30 | 31 | 29 | 34 | 31 | 32 |
| TDS (mg/L) | 306 | 85 | 725 | 130 | 252 | 183 | 737 | 507 | 3323 | 124 | 693 | 97 | 301 | 359 | 59 | 62 |
| cBOD (mg/L) | 12 | 8 | 16 | 20 | 9 | 9 | 17 | 25 | 53 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Sulfate (mg/L) | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | 15 | 18 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| Cd (µg/L) | 0.532 | 0.518 | 2.11 | 2.80 | 2.50 | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc | nc |
| Cu (µg/L) | 15 | 31 | 23 | 15 | 19 | 29 | 36 | 16 | 40 | 23 | 25 | 16 | 19 | 13 | 8 | 9 |
| Pb (µg/L) | 23 | 17 | 22 | 14 | 41 | 31 | 34 | 28 | 23 | 24 | 18 | 15 | 22 | 16 | 8 | 13 |
| Zn (µg/L) | 180 | 76 | 107 | 76 | 86 | 94 | 133 | 132 | 204 | 100 | 103 | 90 | 79 | 68 | 62 | 58 |

*nc = data not collected*
*na = data not analyzed*
Note: Cadmium (Cd) was discontinued from monitoring in 2006 because Cd concentrations had typically been below detection for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 774 -->
The MPRB also monitors SMPs to develop a performance baseline, as required by the NPDES stormwater permit. Different sites are selected each year for monitoring. For example, the following SMPs were monitored in 2016:

*   37th Avenue North Greenway – Iron Enhanced Sand Filters.
*   Webber Park Stormwater Pond.
*   Lyndale Dog Park Stormwater Filter (E. Coli samples, only).
*   37th Avenue North at Oliver Avenue North – Flood Relief Vault (Hydraulic performance, only).

#### Grab Sample Collection at Lyndale Dog Park

<<FIGURE>>
Credit: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Equipment, methods, parameters, results, and analysis is detailed in each MPRB Water Resources Annual Report.

## Coordination with Other Government Agencies

Hennepin County has jurisdiction over 83.5 miles of roads within the City. The City and Hennepin County work together to identify opportunities to retrofit stormwater management systems on Hennepin County road projects.

MnDOT has jurisdiction over 46.3 miles of the roadway within the City. While MnDOT and the City maintain separate stormwater drain systems, runoff water from each system flows into the other’s system, necessitating a high level of coordination, including cooperative agreements for construction of new stormwater facilities – including new stormwater drains and best management practices.

The City cooperates with and coordinates efforts with neighboring cities on the management of common drainage areas. Most coordination is accomplished through watershed management organizations, though some cooperative projects have been implemented outside of this structure.

The City is willing to cooperate with the MPRB and associated watershed organization on streambank repairs that are needed in the areas near City-owned outfalls.

The City and Metropolitan Council cooperate on the CSO program to control public and private discharges to the stormwater and sanitary systems.

## Responsibilities for Infrastructure Management

Responsibility for managing the infrastructure in the City is primarily the responsibility of the Minneapolis Department of Public Works. Sanitary sewer and stormwater drain systems are the responsibility of the Public Works Division of Surface Water and Sewers (PW-SWS), while street maintenance is the responsibility of the Public Works Division of Transportation Maintenance and Repair

<!-- page 775 -->
(PW-TMR). Other departments that have a role in the sanitary sewer and stormwater drain management include Finance and Property Services (MFPS) which manage the City-owned properties, and utility billing, MPRB which manages park lands and waterbodies, and the Minneapolis Department of Health (MDH) which are involved in the emergency spill response. A detailed breakdown of these responsibilities is presented in Table 4.13.

### Table 4.13 – City of Minneapolis Infrastructure Management Responsibilities

| Activity | MFPS | MHD | MPRB | MPW - SWS | MPW-TMR | Other |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| **Stormwater Management** | | | | | | |
| Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Facilities | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Stormwater pond vegetation management | | | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| Runoff management from City facilities | ✓ | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Condition assessment | | | | ✓ | | |
| Stormwater monitoring and analysis | | | ✓ | ✓ | | MPCA, watershed organizations |
| TMDL studies and coordination | | | ✓ | ✓ | | MPCA |
| Program assessment, modification and reporting | | | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| Annual reporting | | | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| Planning, design, funding for stormwater drain improvements | | | | ✓ | | |
| Stormwater management practices O&M | | | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| Street cleaning, snow, and ice removal | | | | | ✓ | |
| **Misc.** | | | | | | |
| WRMP development and coordination | | | | ✓ | | |
| Coordination with watershed districts / organizations | | | | ✓ | | |
| Overall coordination of NPDES requirements | | | | ✓ | | |
| Integrated pest management | | | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| **Sanitary Sewer Management** | | | | | | |
| I/I compliance – sanitary sewers | | | | ✓ | | |
| Planning, design, funding for sanitary collection system improvements | | | | ✓ | | |
| Coordination with Metropolitan Council | | | | ✓ | | |
| Condition assessment | | | | ✓ | | |
| O&M | | | | ✓ | | |
| **Water Resource Management** | | | | | | |
| Lake management | | | ✓ | | | |
| Natural resource management | | | ✓ | ✓ | | |
| Shoreline and beach management | | | ✓ | | | |
| Wetland health evaluation project | | | | | | Hennepin County |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 776 -->
# City of Minneapolis Water Resources Infrastructure Summary and Evaluation

The City operates a robust program to continually assess and maintain the condition, capacity, and operation of its infrastructure systems, as detailed in this section. The City also improves its infrastructure as needed to meet regulatory requirements. The remainder of this section provides a summary of the City programs and practices and identifies areas that need additional effort to meet regulatory requirements.

## Sanitary Sewer System

### Capacity Summary and Evaluation

The City’s sanitary sewers have sufficient capacity to meet current and future flows. This capacity is a direct result of the City’s ongoing efforts to remove stormwater connections to sanitary sewers. Opportunities to construct new sanitary sewers exist in underdeveloped areas of the City. These opportunities are limited and will occur on a case-by-case basis when new development is proposed.

### Combined Sewer Overflow and Inflow/Infiltration Summary and Evaluation

The City is committed to continual inspection and disconnection of stormwater connections to the sanitary sewer system. The City’s CSO Annual Reports document annual activities and progress towards the I/I goals established by Metropolitan Council through 2017. Future documentation and progress towards I/I goals and guided by the March 2018 MOU will be reported in an annual report that combines both sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage system activities.

## Stormwater Management and Drain System

### SWMP and Conformance with NPDES Requirements Summary and Requirements

The City’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) details the City’s most current stormwater management activities. It is written to be in compliance with current NPDES permit requirements. The initial SWMP was prepared in September 2011 to be in accordance with the requirements of the January 21, 2011 NPDES stormwater permit. The SWMP was updated in 2013 and 2015 to reflect additions and changes to the City’s program. The SWMP will be reissued in late 2018 based on new requirements contained in the NPDES Integrated Permit.

A detailed summary of each year’s activities is contained in the City’s annual report. Each year through 2017, the City prepared two annual reports, one being an annual summary of stormwater management activities, construction, and monitoring as a documentation of compliance with its NPDES stormwater permit. The second was a documentation of progress towards I/I goals. Beginning in 2018, all stormwater and sanitary activities will be reported in an integrated annual report that combines both sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage system activities, in accordance with the draft NPDES Integrated Permit.

The SWMP and annual reporting requirements are subject to change to be in compliance with future NPDES permits.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 777 -->
### Capacity Summary and Evaluation

The City will fully assess the capacity of its stormwater drain system in 2018 as part of a comprehensive analysis of the city-wide XP-SWMM (Storm Water Management Model) modeling. The model will be used to develop runoff volumes and discharge rates at each of the City’s 419 outfall structures. This information will be appended to this WRMP as a minor plan amendment after the modeling and analysis is complete.

The prioritization of Capital Improvement Projects, as described in Section 6, is likely to change after the entire stormwater drainage capacity is analyzed. Project prioritization will be updated annually as the City adopts the CIP program each year.

<!-- page 778 -->
# Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs

## Overview

Effective municipal water resource management involves proper land and activity management on both public and private properties. Flows to the sanitary sewers are regulated through permits issued by the City of Minneapolis (City) and the Metropolitan Council. Stormwater management on private property is regulated at the time of development, or redevelopment, through construction permits issued by the City. Public education is utilized to inform residents and property owners of required activities that are not triggered by new construction. This section of the Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) details the official regulatory controls and programs adopted by the City and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) that serve to protect water resources. Official controls include ordinances, City Council resolutions, guidance documents, maps, and this WRMP.

## City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Ordinances

Both the City and the MPRB have adopted ordinances that influence water resource management. A summarized list of the primary City ordinances that relate to water resource management is contained in Table 5.1. A summarized list of the primary MPRB ordinances that relate to water resource management is contained in Table 5.2. Full versions of all City and MPRB ordinances are available at the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances website.

**Table 5.1 – City of Minneapolis Code of Ordinances**

| CODE OF ORDINANCES | |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Title 3 – Air Pollution and Environmental Protection** | |
| CHAPTER 48 | MINNEAPOLIS WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY |
| 48.60 | Provides authority to Minneapolis Health Department to regulate and control watershed pollution. |
| 48.80 | Prohibited pollutants definitions. |
| 48.120 - 48.150 | Permit and registration requirements for above ground and below ground storage tanks and materials. |
| 48.260 | Permit and registration requirements for wells. |
| 48.270 | Permit and registration requirements for oil/water separators and sediment traps. |
| 48.300 | Storage, stockpile and permit requirements for materials contaminated with pollutants. |
| CHAPTER 50 | MINNEAPOLIS WASTE CONTROL AND DISCHARGE RULES |
| 50.50 | Permit requirements for discharge industrial waste to sanitary sewers. |
| 50.60 | Permit and annual registration requirements for discharge of runoff from process facilities. Facilities with No Exposure Exemption from MPCA exempt from registration. |
| 50.65 | Permit requirements for connection to sanitary sewer. |
| CHAPTER 52 | EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES |
| 52.50 | Activities exempt from obtaining a permit for erosion and sediment control. |
| 52.60 | Design requirements minimize surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 779 -->
| CODE OF ORDINANCES | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 52.70 | Erosion and sediment control practice requirements for prevention of deposition of soil in sensitive areas. |
| 52.100 - 52.130 | Erosion and sediment control plan and associated reports content requirements. |
| 52.140 - 52.210 | Permit requirements for land disturbance or land filling activity. |
| 52.275 | Standards for conveyance and management of stormwater. |
| CHAPTER 54 | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS |
| 54.30 | Establishes the Minneapolis Stormwater Management Design Manual authority. In events of non-conformance, a resolution is adopted by the City Council. |
| 54.50 | Stormwater management plan, registration, and annual fee requirements for all land-disturbing projects with stormwater management devices. |
| 54.70 | Stormwater Management Plan requirements and strategies to mitigate stormwater runoff required prior to construction. |
| CHAPTER 55 | LAWN FERTILIZER |
| 55.30 | Provides authority to the Minneapolis Watershed Management Authority and the Minneapolis Health Department to regulate lawn fertilizer. |
| 55.40 | General regulations of fertilizer application. |
| 55.60 | Application rates for phosphorous-containing lawn fertilizer. |
| 55.70 | Forbids the sale of phosphorous-containing fertilizer in the City of Minneapolis as of January 1, 2002. |
| CHAPTER 56 | PROHIBITED DISCHARGES TO SANITARY OR COMBINED SEWERS (I/I ORDINANCE) |
| 56.60 | Provides authority to the Minneapolis Health Department to regulate I/I discharges to sanitary or combined sewers. |
| 56.70 | Prohibits stormwater connections to sanitary sewers. |
| 56.90 | Requires downspouts not be directed to structures within 10 feet of downspout. |
| 56.100 | Permit requirements for disconnection of any rainwater pipe, rainleader, area drain, or other connections. |
| 56.140 | Disconnection requirements for rainwater pipes, rainleaders, area drains, or other connections conveying stormwater and/or clearwater from a property to a sanitary sewer system. |
| 56.180 - 56.200 | Establishes appeals procedures; sets up appeals panel and procedures. |
| CHAPTER 57 | MERCURY REDUCTION |
| 57.10 | Discussion of public health in respect to mercury. |
| 57.20 | Prohibits sale and purchase of certain mercury-containing products. |
| 57.30 | Retailers required to post visible signage if product contains mercury. |
| CHAPTER 60 | COAL TAR-BASED SEALER PRODUCTS |
| 60.30 | Prohibited use of coal tar-based sealants on driveways and other applications. |
| 60.50 | Exemption of asphalt-based sealcoat for bona fide research or purpose. |
| 60.60 | Establishes penalties. |
| | Title 19 – Water, Sewers, and Sewage Disposal |
| Chapter 510 | Stormwater Management System and Operation of a Stormwater Utility. |
| Chapter 511 | Sewers and Sewage Disposal |
| | Title 20 – Zoning Code |
| CHAPTER 530 | SITE PLAN REVIEW |
| 530.160 | Requirements for landscaping and screening; establishes minimum requirement of 20 percent of site to be landscaped. |
| 530.190 | Encourages use of landscape to intercept and filter runoff. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 780 -->
| CODE OF ORDINANCES | |
| :--- | :--- |
| CHAPTER 535 | REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY |
| 535.300 - 535.315 | Protection and mitigation of natural features required during development, including stormwater management and groundwater management. |
| 535.680 | Prohibits creation of water pollution by operations or occupation of a structure. |
| CHAPTER 551 | SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT |
| 551.440 | Describes the purpose of shoreland overlay districts to protect the surface waters and shoreland areas within the City of Minneapolis. |
| 551.510 | Prohibits grading and filling more than 10 cubic yards when the land slopes toward a protected water. |
| 551.520 | Prohibits removal of vegetation near steep banks sloping toward a protected water. |
| 551.530 | Requires all developments to comply with stormwater regulation and to employ best management practices to minimize negative effects of stormwater runoff. |
| CHAPTER 551 | FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT |
| 551.140 | Describes purpose of floodplain overlay districts to comply with rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program. |
| 551.590 | Requires that materials deposited in the floodplain overlay district be protected (riprap, vegetation, etc.) and describes floodwater protection requirements for public utilities, sewage systems, and water supply systems. |
| 551.600 - 551.645 | Establishes prohibited, permitted, and conditional uses within floodplain and flood fringe overlay districts. |
| 551.650 | Establishes standards for uses within flood fringe overlay districts. |
| CHAPTER 551 | MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT |
| 551.660 | Describes the Mississippi River Critical Overlay District as an entity that will preserve and enhance the River. |
| 551.700 | Prohibits development on bluffs and within 40 feet of top of bluffs. |
| **Title 22 – Land Subdivision** | |
| CHAPTER 598 | LAND SUBDIVISION |
| 598.100 | Establishes requirements for the protection or mitigation of natural features in a subdivision development, including protected waters, wetlands, significant trees, significant plant communities, steep slopes, and threatened/endangered species habitats. |
| 598.110 | Establishes stormwater management requirements for developments. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 781 -->
### Table 5.2 – Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Code of Ordinances

| CODE OF ORDINANCES | |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Chapter 3 – Bathing and Beaches** | |
| PB3-2 | Forbids swimming and bathing at unauthorized beaches or water. |
| PB3-3 | Permit and license requirements to use floatation equipment on park lakes. |
| PB3-4 | Permit requirements for use of underwater breathing equipment in park waters. |
| **Chapter 4 – Boating** | |
| PB4-1 | Permit requirements to have or use watercraft on a lake within the City. |
| PB4-19 | Provides authority to the superintendent of parks to enact additional rules and conditions for park waters. |
| **Chapter 10 – Trees and Vegetation** | |
| PB10-1 - PB10-5 | Permit requirements and procedure for planting trees within limits of parkway or street. |
| **Chapter 12 – Environmental Protection, Shoreland, and Floodplain Preservation** | |
| PB12-3 - PB12-4 | Permit required to install structure on floodplains or protected shorelines. |
| PB12-5 | Restrictions on removing vegetation from floodplains and protected shoreline. |
| PB12-7 | Restrictions on grading or filling floodplains and protected shoreline. |
| PB12-7 | Provides authority for the Park Board to take action on floodplains and protected shorelines, while complying with the State and Federal laws. |

## Water Resource Management Programs

The City and MPRB manage numerous programs that require actions on the part of citizens and property owners that serve to keep pollutants from being transported to water resources via the storm drainage system or the sanitary sewer system. Detailed information on stormwater programs is available in the current version of the Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Integrated Permit. A description of activities and progress of the CSO and stormwater programs through 2017 is contained in the City's CSO and NPDES Stormwater Annual Reports, and in the MPRB Annual Water Resources Report. Starting in 2019, for calendar year 2018, all NPDES annual summaries will be contained in a single annual report. A general description of these programs is provided in the following sections.

## Complaints

The City provides several techniques for the public to use to report environmental complaints:

* The Minneapolis 311 service is a centralized location for the public to request services, communicate with City staff, seek information, or submit complaints. The public can communicate to 311 via the website, by phone, or through a mobile app. Minneapolis 311 assigns each call/complaint to the appropriate department/division, and responses and response time are tracked by the Minneapolis 311 system.

* The Minneapolis Department of Health, Environmental Management, maintains an online complaint submittal form to report any environmental issue such as water quality violations, illegal dumping, chemical spills, etc.

<!-- page 782 -->
*   The Public Works Department maintains a “[Who to Call and When](https://example.com)” list of direct contact information for sanitary sewer or stormwater specific issues such as street flooding, sewer backups, odors, illegal dumping, etc. Also, included in this contact list, are links to Environmental Management and the MPRB for non-infrastructure complaints.

## Emergency Preparedness

The City has established an Emergency Management Office that is responsible for the City’s response in the event of an emergency, which is detailed in the City’s Emergency Operation Plan.

### Spill Response

The Emergency Operation Plan has written a statement of policies and procedures to be followed in the event of a spill that describe the measures taken for spill containment, source elimination, and recovery. The City’s Regulatory Services section has overall responsibility for communications, development of an Incident Action Plan, and investigations. A Hazardous Materials Response Team is mobilized in the event of a large spill that has the potential to reach surface waters. After the event, street maintenance staff coordinate the final clean-up and disposal of both the streets and affected sewers/storm drains. Public Works will also collect, manage, and properly dispose of all debris collected from the spill, including sand and other materials used to sop up the spill. Fire Inspection Services staff and others continue to monitor the site and coordinate debriefings to determine the cause of the event, the City’s response, and means to limit future events. Training on response procedures is conducted for staff assigned to spill response.

Both the MPCA Duty Officer and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety are informed of all spills that exceed 5 gallons.

### Flood Response

In the event of a flood, the City’s Emergency Operation Plan details pre-flood preparations, as well as emergency responses during the flood.

## Erosion and Sediment Control

In 1996, the City adopted its Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance ([Chapter 52, Minneapolis Code of Ordinances](https://example.com)) for the specific purpose of controlling soil erosion and sedimentation to prevent transportation of eroded soil to lakes, creeks, and the Mississippi River. The [City of Minneapolis Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Guide](https://example.com) contains a detailed description of the Erosion and Sediment Control requirements, including permits, plan requirements, and additional regulations.

### Construction Permits and Inspections

Chapter 52 requires that all land disturbing activity be conducted in a manner that prevents soil sediment from moving from the construction site onto adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Erosion and Sediment Control Permit requirements are triggered whenever a land disturbing activity exceeds 5 cubic yards in volume or 500 square feet in area. Larger projects that exceed 500 cubic yards in volume or 5,000 square feet in area must also prepare a stormwater management plan as a condition of permit issuance. Permit application forms and fee schedules are available through the City’s [Development Review Customer Service Center](https://example.com).

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 783 -->
The Public Works Department has developed tools to aid in the development of erosion and sediment control plans for projects that exceed 500 cubic yards or 5,000 square feet. Tools include standard notes that can be listed on the erosion and sediment control plan and a checklist of required plan elements. For more in-depth information, contractors and designers are encouraged to utilize information developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Erosion Control Association, and the University of Minnesota Erosion and Stormwater Management Certification Program.

**Unmanaged Construction Site with Significant Soil Erosion on Sidewalk and Street**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

During construction, sites are inspected and managed by the Minneapolis Department of Health Environmental Services.

### Non-Construction Inspection and Enforcement
Non-construction generated erosion and sedimentation inspections and enforcement are conducted on a complaint basis by the Minneapolis Department of Health Environmental Services.

## Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Illicit discharges include both intentional dumping of wastes and accidental spills of chemicals/liquids in the City’s storm drain system. Intentional would include dumping of oil/paint or other regulated wastes into catch basins. Accidental spills include the accidental releases caused by motor vehicle collisions or electrical transformer overloads. The result is untreated waste and hazardous materials that contribute to high levels of pollutants, which includes heavy metals, toxics, and solvents, being discharged directly into surface waters.

The Environmental Services Section of the Health Department is designated as responsible for control of Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE). Activities include development of baseline information, identification of problem areas, investigation and determination of sources, documentation, and corrective action. Environmental Management also provides education and regulation for unauthorized and non-stormwater discharges in the storm drains.

The City has implemented a storm drain outfall inspection program that includes inspections for flows during dry weather as an approach to identification of IDDE sources, as required by the City’s NPDES Integrated Permit. If dry weather flows are detected during an inspection, then a grab sample is collected for analysis to determine if pollutants are present. Public Works Field Services and Department of Health Environmental Services work together to discover the source and ultimately to eliminate the illicit flows.

<!-- page 784 -->
Additional efforts to eliminate illicit discharges to the storm sewers include public education, and direct response to notifications received from the community, other city departments, and government agencies. Currently, Department of Health Environmental Services addresses complaints of materials being discharged to the Minneapolis storm drainage system whether they are permitted discharges or not. The Department of Health Environmental Services also reviews compliance with NPDES, State Disposal System (SDS), and general stormwater permit requirements for businesses, as needed.

## Inflow/Infiltration Compliance, Private Properties

As described in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment, the City recognized that historic building practices that allowed rooftop drainage connections to the sanitary sewer system were a factor in the continued overflow at combined sewer overflow (CSO) regulators. As part of the 2002 Phase II CSO Program, the City began to focus on the identification and elimination of these rooftop drainage connections to the sanitary sewer. To support this initiative, Minneapolis Ordinance Chapter 56 – Prohibited Discharges to Sanitary Sewer System, was updated on August 1, 2003. This updated ordinance authorized a program to inspect suspected rooftop connections and coordinate disconnections with property owners. It requires property owners to redirect rooftop rainleaders and private surface area drainage either to side yards or to the public storm drain system. Property inspections are conducted to identify illegal connections to sanitary sewer and then notifications are sent of the work needed to comply with the ordinance and other official controls.

The purpose of the Minneapolis ordinance Chapter 56 – Prohibited Discharges to Sanitary Sewer System is as follows:

> *MCO 56.10 Purpose: The City of Minneapolis has been pursuing an aggressive campaign of separating its sanitary sewer system from its stormwater drainage system to reduce the number of combined sewer overflows (CSO). However, some rainleaders and other components, which handle stormwater, are still connected to the sanitary sewer system. During rain events, infiltration and inflow from buildings and parking lots with rainleaders and area drains connected to the sanitary sewer system, cause its capacity to be exceeded resulting in overflows to adjacent storm drains. This overflow ends up discharging sewage and stormwater into the Mississippi River. Rooftop drains (rainleaders) that are connected to the sanitary sewer system are one of the major causes of combined sewer overflows.*
>
> *Residential and commercial buildings, usually built before [1930], sometimes have pipes that lead underground directly into the sanitary sewer system, rather than through gutters to lawns or the stormwater drainage system. To protect the environment and prevent these overflows as well as preventing the possibility of sewage backing up into homes and businesses, rainleaders and other connections which deliver stormwater into the sanitary system rather than the stormwater drainage system or to pervious surfaces need to be disconnected. State and federal environmental mandates require us to work to eliminate combined sewer overflows.*
>
> *The city and metropolitan council have conducted studies that determined the main contributor to these overflows is rainleader connections. The purpose of the City of Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Chapter 56 is to define regulations that will aid the city in*

<!-- page 785 -->
*limiting inflow of rainwater to the sanitary sewer system. The ordinance will help to minimize the overflow problem resulting from the lack of capacity of the sanitary system to handle large amounts of rainwater. Rainwater runoff will be more appropriately handled through natural filtration and/or the stormwater drainage system. The net result will be a cleaner Mississippi River and a more efficient waste treatment system.*

Previous City official controls and state plumbing codes were applicable to new construction only, and not to existing connections. Additional revisions to Chapter 56 were approved in 2006 to accelerate rooftop disconnections to meet the Metropolitan Council inflow/infiltration (I/I) reduction goals described in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment. These revisions included:

*   Provisions to support enforcement of administrative citations.
*   Providing the City with the ability to order connections to the storm drain system to be constructed as the sanitary sewer disconnection method.
*   Allowing the use of assessments to recover the cost of disconnection of roof drains.

Significant progress has been made on disconnecting rainleaders from the sanitary sewer system. Table 5.3 summarizes the progress made on disconnection of rainleaders from the sanitary sewer through 2017 and Figure 5.1 identifies the location of these rainleaders. The total number of remaining rooftop connections to the sanitary sewer is estimated to be 323.

#### Table 5.3 – Rooftop Disconnections from Sanitary Sewers
| Year | Rooftop Connections Removed Per Year | Cumulative Rooftop Connections Removed |
| :--- | :---: | :---: |
| 2008 | -- | 4,537 |
| 2009 | 1,021 | 5,558 |
| 2010 | 427 | 5,985 |
| 2011 | 186 | 6,171 |
| 2012 | 133 | 6,304 |
| 2013 | 220 | 6,524 |
| 2014 | 150 | 6,674 |
| 2015 | 315 | 6,989 |
| 2016 | 105 | 7,094 |
| 2017 | 7 | 7,103 |

<!-- page 786 -->
### Figure 5.1 – Rooftop Disconnections in the City of Minneapolis

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 787 -->
Other efforts that work to reduce I/I contributions to the sanitary sewer include:

*   Minnesota Code of Ordinances 56.80: Prohibited Connections – (a) Connections not permitted. Rainwater pipes, rainleaders, area drains, or other connections used for conveying stormwater and clearwater from any building, structure, ground, or premises shall be not connected or reconnected with any sanitary sewer system.

*   Minnesota Code of Ordinances 56.80: Previously Allowed Connections – (a) Existing connections not permitted. Rainwater pipes, rainleaders, area drains, and other connections used for conveying stormwater and clearwater from any building, structure, ground, or premises which were legally connected to the sanitary sewer system prior to 1961 or those which were connected later by City permission shall be disconnected from the sanitary sewer system pursuant to 56.140 of this Code or by January 1,2005, whichever occurs first.

*   Sump Pumps Chapter 56/Chapter 248: Truth in Sale of Housing – Truth in Sale of Housing evaluation is required for the sale of a single-family home, duplexes, townhouses, and first-time condominium conversions. Sump pumps were added to the evaluation in 2007. Sump pumps are evaluated for conformance with Chapter 56 as part of the inspection. Truth in Sale of Housing repairs are required to be completed when a property is sold within 90 days of closing.

## Public Education, Participation, and Involvement

### Public Education

Successful management of the City’s surface water requires positive support and action from the public. To engage City residents and gain their active support and participation, the City and the MPRB maintain several education efforts that aim to inform City residents about basic stormwater management, flood mitigation, water quality concepts, regulations, and policies. Many programs focus on partnering with other agencies and non-profit organizations. The City will continue to work with watershed management organizations on water resource monitoring, education events, professional training, distribution of materials, and other educational activities as opportunities arise.

Adjustments to the program are made each year to reflect changing educational needs and partnership opportunities. In 2017, MPRB Environmental Management naturalist staff participated in 30 Minneapolis community festivals and neighborhood events, as well as concerts and movies. Hands-on water quality education displays focused on neighborhood watersheds and how human activities impact local waterbodies. Education staff utilized portable mini-golf, bean bag toss, an aerial photo floor graphic of the City and its watersheds, and other hands-on learning activities. In addition, 495 people experienced water quality education while canoeing the lakes of the City. Other children’s programming focused on water quality education themes in summer programs including a partnership with the Minneapolis Institute of Art that used art and water-related activities to serve 335 kids between 6 and 12 years old. Still more programs incorporated water education themes into the summer camps called Urban Adventure Camp, Outdoor Survival, and Nature Explorers serving 245 kids between 6 and 12 years old.

The following is a snapshot of additional 2017 water quality education projects that are directly supported by the City:

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 788 -->
### Water Quality Education Materials

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board*

* The Minneapolis Adopt-a-Drain program has volunteers cleaning debris from catch basin grates in their neighborhoods. Volunteers commit to cleaning their assigned drains for a period of two years.

* Aquatic Invasive Species Program by the MPRB focuses on inspection and signage at public boat launches between May 1 and December 1 each year. Additional detail on the Aquatic Invasive Species program is included in Section 3.

* **Boulevard Bioswales** is a program under development by Minneapolis Surface Water and Sewers in cooperation with the MPRB and Blooming Boulevards. The program will sponsor the creation of rain swales with native plantings to be installed along boulevards that have the ash trees removed by the MPRB. The goal of the program is to reduce stormwater runoff and allow for localized infiltration. Homeowners are presented with a choice of plant palettes, each comprised of pollinator-friendly plant species. These homeowners will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the Bioswales. Approximately 900 boulevard rain swales are anticipated to be installed over this four-year period.

* Canines for Clean Water is a joint MPRB and City water quality education program initiated in 2009 that targets dog owners. In 2017, Public Service Announcements were shown that encourage pet owners to pick up pet waste and encourages all property owners to stop or reduce their use of winter salt.

* **Do Not Feed the Ducks** is a successful program to persuade park patrons not to feed the ducks. It utilizes an oversized buoy in the shape of a rubber duck and more than 200 tabletop ducks distributed at MPRB licensed restaurants.

#### Do Not Feed the Ducks Buoy

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board*

<!-- page 789 -->
*   **Earth Day Watershed Clean-Up** was initiated in 1995 to draw attention to the water quality improvement needs of City lakes, and the effects that individual actions have on urban water quality. The goals of the Earth Day Clean-Up event are to prevent trash and debris from entering Minneapolis waterbodies and to provide a volunteer experience and environmental education to City residents and park users.

**Earth Day Watershed Clean-Up**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

*   Minneapolis Surface Water and Sewers has developed education materials aimed at reducing the disposal of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) into the sanitary sewers. Improper disposal of FOB materials tends to clog within the sewers, leading to higher levels of sanitary sewer and lateral cleaning, and/or sewer backups. The materials are primarily developed for restaurants and other food service establishments but are valuable for waste management in all kitchens.

*   Greening Teen Teamworks is a summer youth employment program managed by the MPRB for 30+ years. The Greening Teen Teamworks program meets weekly with all sites supervisor and youth to provide education on stormwater runoff, water quality, and actions that should be taken to help keep our lakes, creeks, and river healthy. These site-based youth crews are charged with keeping the parks stormwater drains clear and curb lines picked up, and at parks with waterbodies, the crews remove debris from outlets and tidy up shorelines. The Greening Teen Teamworks program is funded by the MWMO.

*   Metro Bloom Program conducts Rain Garden Workshops, including workshop facilitation, rainwater garden design, water quality education, and other assistance for individual property owners.

*   **Mississippi River Green Team** is a conservation-based teen crew engaged in daily hands-on environmental work throughout the summer. There are two crews of ten youth each, which work mostly in the natural areas of the Minneapolis park system, and within the watershed of the Mississippi River. Typical work days include invasive species removal, weed wrenching, planting, watering, mulching, and citizen science work.

<!-- page 790 -->
* **Plants for Pollinators** neighborhood events have been conducted by the Minneapolis Surface Water and Sewers staff to provide information on vegetation at stormwater management sites. To-date, events have been held at the South 43rd Street and Park Avenue site (2016) and the Shingle Creek South stormwater pond (2017). A 2018 site is yet to be selected.

* Minneapolis initiated a city-wide storm drain inlet stenciling program in 1995. Volunteers stencil “DO NOT DUMP, DRAINS TO RIVER” messages next to catch basins and distribute educational door hangers to residences and businesses in the stenciled neighborhoods. Stencils are available in English, Spanish, and Somali.

### Storm Drain Stencil Volunteers

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

**Storm Drain Stencil Door Hanger**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

The City also funds workshops on how homeowners can improve vegetation and soil conditions to promote activities that retain rainfall and reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. The following workshops are facilitated by Metro Blooms, a Minneapolis based non-profit organization:

* Resilient Yards workshops provide how-to information on rain gardens, turf alternatives, pollinator habitat, trees, and native plantings.

* Turf Alternative workshops present a variety of do-it-yourself alternatives to turf. The workshops provide information on how perennial ground covers reduce the need for irrigation and chemical inputs while maximizing ecological benefits. The two most popular turf alternatives have been Low Maintenance Lawns and Bee Lawns.

Additionally, there are multiple organizations that also provide water quality education to Minneapolis residents and businesses, including:

<!-- page 791 -->
*   Freshwater Society of Minnesota
*   Friends of Mississippi River
*   Friends of Diamond Lake
*   Friends of Lake Hiawatha
*   Friends of Lake Nokomis
*   Hamline University College for Global Education
*   Hennepin County
*   Linden Hills Environmental Committee
*   Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
*   Metro Watershed Partners
*   Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
*   West Metro Water Alliance

### Public Participation and Involvement

As part of the implementation of a new activity or development of a capital improvement project, the City actively seeks to engage the public in the process of decision-making. The City is committed to incorporating community engagement activities into decision-making for all activities undertaken by City departments. The City keeps its residents informed about stormwater and sanitary sewer capital improvement projects through its website and social media platforms. Information is provided on specific projects, and periodic updates on the progress of the listed projects are made available. Public meetings are conducted to invite public input on project-specific issues.

### Rat and Rodent Control

In the event of a rat infestation in the sanitary sewer, maintenance staff from the Division of Surface Waters and Sewers will control the population by using poison. Raccoons and other animals commonly found in the storm drainage pipes and/or Stormwater Management Practices (SMPs) are trapped and removed only if the animal is causing damage or otherwise sick or injured.

### Site Plan Review and Capital Project Task Force

For development and redevelopment projects, the Public Works Surface Water and Sewers Division (PW-SWS) carries out review for compliance of stormwater and sanitary sewer requirements, as part of the multi-department site plan review process coordinated by the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED). For projects that propose changes to the City’s infrastructure (streets, lights, public utilities, etc.), the Public Works Department coordinates the Capital Projects Task Force (CPTF) process of review for compliance with the City’s requirements for working within the public right-of-way.

In October 2017, the PW-SWS posted the City of Minneapolis Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Guide (Guide) to provide information for developers and site designers to follow to ensure compliance with the City’s requirements. The Guide includes a description of the City’s stormwater management official controls, including the stormwater management ordinance, hydrologic/hydraulic model guidelines, groundwater permitting, project requirements, responsibilities during construction, and responsibilities following requirements. This Guide is a regulatory control that is, and will continue to be, used to ensure water resource standards are met with each development, redevelopment, and public facility constructed in the City.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 792 -->
### Stormwater Management Standards for Development and Redevelopment/Post-Construction Stormwater Management

Shortly after the adoption of this WRMP, the Guide will be updated to change the official controls that regulate stormwater management in the City. Onsite stormwater management has been required for both private developments and new public facilities constructed since 1999 as a condition of site plan approval for developments, redevelopments, and public projects that disturb more than one acre. Chapter 54 of the Code of Ordinances established this requirement, applied pollutant reduction goals for projects that require post-construction stormwater management, and recommended that infiltration (stormwater volume reduction) be maximized to the greatest possible degree except in the cases of likely stormwater contamination (stormwater hotspots). Stormwater management plans submitted for Minneapolis Development Review must provide for stormwater controls to meet the pollution reduction goals contained in Chapter 54. The City has initiated a process to update these requirements in accordance with the NPDES Integrated Permit, the standards established by the watershed district/organizations with jurisdiction in the City, and to define requirements and the approval process for new private outfalls to surface waters. The MS4 permit requires all new and redevelopment projects that create or fully reconstruct one or more acres of impervious surface to retain onsite, to the maximum practicable extent, a stormwater volume of one-inch times the new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces, except where infiltration is prohibited. Road projects are required to reduce a stormwater volume of one-inch times the net increase of impervious surfaces and reduce stormwater runoff volume for fully reconstructed surfaces, except where prohibited. The Permit requires the City's regulatory program to contain prohibitions on stormwater infiltration for sites where runoff may be contaminated, where the soils may be contaminated, in vulnerable wellhead protection areas, or where site conditions prevent effective infiltration (clay soils, sandy soils, Karst, too close to bedrock or groundwater). The Permit addresses mitigation provisions for circumstances where required conditions for stormwater management cannot be cost effectively met for construction projects.

### Floodplain Management

Floodplain management is the management of developments and other activities in or near the floodplain that serve to prevent flood damages to structures. The DNR defines floodplain management as "the full range of public policy and action for ensuring wise use of the floodplains. It includes everything from collection and dissemination of flood control information to actual acquisition of floodplain lands, construction of flood control measures, and enactment and administration of codes, ordinances, and statutes regarding floodplain land use."

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created by Congress in 1968. As stated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "The National Flood Insurance Program aims to reduce the impact of flooding on private and public structures. It does so by providing affordable insurance to property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations. These efforts help mitigate the effects of flooding on new and improve structures."

FEMA periodically revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to more accurately delineate floodplain boundaries. As new maps are revised, the City adopts these new map panels and updates the provisions of the Floodplain Overlay District to continue participating in the NFIP and to reflect better

<!-- page 793 -->
topographical data and more accurately represent the location of the determined floodway and flood fringe elevations.

The City will continue to implement its Floodplain Ordinance and to manage activities within the floodplain in accordance with State and Federal regulations. Through the ordinance, the City will maintain no net loss of floodplain storage and will not allow changes to the floodplain that will cause any increase to critical 100-year flood elevations. Where more up-to-date floodplain modeling exists, the City will use that information during the development process to provide land owners with a more accurate view of future flood risk to their property.

### Anti-Degradation Requirements for Development and Redevelopment
The City is in compliance with the state anti-degradation requirements. The City has not created any new or expanded discharges as defined in 7050.0185 Subp. 2.A. and B. A non-degradation assessment was completed in 2010, with MPCA staff concluding that there had been no expanded discharge of stormwater from the jurisdiction of Minneapolis. From 1988 to 2010, the reduction in impervious cover was estimated at approximately 5 percent. The City has reduced, and is continuing to reduce, discharges through City stormwater management initiatives, City zoning requirements for developers, requirements of the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit regulations, and requirements of other local water management organizations. There has been a steady increase in the number of private plus City-owned structural best management practices (BMPs) installed in the City since 1988 to reduce runoff volume and pollutant loads, as shown in **Figure 5.2**.

**Figure 5.2 – Estimated Cumulative Total Structural BMPs Installed Since 1988 to Reduce Stormwater Runoff Volume and Pollutant Discharge to Surface Waters**

<<FIGURE>>

The NPDES Integrated Permit requires that the City submit an application for reauthorization of this anti-degradation assessment after issuance of the final permit. No major changes to the status is anticipated.

<!-- page 794 -->
### Watershed Organization Requirements

Stormwater management requirements established by the City overlap with the standards established by the watershed district/organization with jurisdiction in the City. While the City works closely with all four of the watershed management organizations to coordinate water resource approvals, the specific review authority varies with each organization, as follows:

*   **BCWMC** has authority to review projects to ensure compliance with their standards. BCWMC will review projects only after the City has completed local review and has affirmed that local requirements have been met.

*   **MCWD** has authority to issue permits to projects that meet the standards set in their rules. Generally, the MCWD site plan review is independent from local review and is typically concurrent with all other permit reviews.

*   **MWMO** does not issue permits. The MWMO does work closely with member cities to ensure that local controls meet MWMO standards.

*   **SCWMC** has authority to review projects to ensure compliance with their standards. SCWMC will review projects only after the City has granted approval that the local requirements have been met.

MCWD allows local governments to assume sole regulatory authority to issue permits for some or all of their permits. This authority could be delegated to the local government after certain conditions set by the MCWD have been met. The City does not wish to assume sole regulatory responsibility for MCWD rules.

These watershed organization requirements overlap with stormwater management requirements set by the MPCA in their General Permit for Construction Activities. Table 5.4 compares the minimum sized site that is required to meet specific stormwater management activities for each of these organizations that are in effect in 2017.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 795 -->
### Table 5.4 – Minneapolis and Watershed Organization Permit Requirements for Redevelopments through 2017

| Permit Category | Land Use or Activity | Minneapolis Minimum Site Area or Volume[^p795-a], [^p795-b] | BCWMC Minimum Site Area or Volume[^p795-c] | MCWD Minimum Site Area or Volume[^p795-d], [^p795-e] | MWMO Minimum Site Area or Volume[^p795-f] | SCWMC Minimum Site Area or Volume[^p795-g] | MPCA Minimum Site Area or Volume[^p795-h] |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Erosion Control | All | 500 sf | 10,000 sf | 5,000 sf | Applies requirements to member cities | Required for all sites that require permit | 1 acre |
| Erosion Control | Cut or Fill | 5 cy | 200 cy | 50 cy | N/A | Required for all sites that require permit | N/A |
| Stormwater Management | All | 1 acre disturbance | 1 acre new impervious surface | 1 acre | 1 acre | N/A | 1 acre new impervious surface |
| Stormwater Management | Non-residential | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0.5 acres | N/A |
| Stormwater Management | Residential | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1 acre | N/A |

Source:
[^p795-a]: Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 52, Erosion and Sediment Control and Drainage
[^p795-b]: Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 54, Stormwater Management
[^p795-c]: BCWMC Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals, September 2015. http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/application/files/9814/4430/8842/AppendixH-RevisedRequirementsDoc-Sept2015-Final.pdf
[^p795-d]: MCWD Erosion Control Rule, April 24, 2014. http://minnehahacreek.org/sites/minnehahacreek.org/files/attachments/6%20%20Rule%20-%20erosion%20control.pdf
[^p795-e]: MCWD Stormwater Management Rule, April 24, 2014. http://minnehahacreek.org/sites/minnehahacreek.org/files/attachments/12.%20Rule%20-%20stormwater.pdf
[^p795-f]: MWMO Watershed Management Plan, November 15, 2016. http://mwmo.org/reports/watershed-management-plan/
[^p795-g]: SCWMC Rules and Standards, July 11, 2013. http://www.shinglecreek.org/uploads/5/7/7/6/57762663/scwm_rules_and_standards_revised_2013.pdf
[^p795-h]: MPCA, NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity, August 1, 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-strm2-68a.pdf

The City will look for opportunities to partner with watershed organizations to ensure that both City and watershed organization requirements for developments and redevelopments are met. In cases where current city controls are restricting the advancement of a project, the City will review and will seek to modify the controls in a manner that allows for the project to continue while also meeting the City's overall water resource goals. Revisions to official controls proposed by the City will follow an inclusive stakeholder review process that includes all watershed organizations, as well as other affected external stakeholders. Specifically, in 2018, the City will update the stormwater official controls to be in compliance with the NPDES Integrated Permit and revisions recommended in this WRMP.

### Wetland Conservation Act

New construction projects that propose to alter wetlands must comply with provisions of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The City of Minneapolis, Department of Public Works, is designated as the local government unit (LGU) by the Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources, except for the

<!-- page 796 -->
part of the City within the bounds of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). As LGU, the City is responsible for ensuring the provisions of the WCA are implemented in Minneapolis.

Although most wetlands in the City are located on public property, there are a few small wetlands that are under private ownership. If a development or redevelopment proposes to alter a wetland that is governed by the Wetland Conservation Act, the City will require that the developer delineate the wetland and prepare a wetland mitigation plan that must be approved by the Public Works Division of Surface Water and Sewers. The City may opt to consult with the watershed management organization or a technical evaluation panel (TEP) to ensure that the mitigation plan meets all requirements.

The City’s wetland review also includes review for compliance with the BCWMC buffer requirements.

### Minimal Impact Design Standards Flexible Treatment Options

The Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) goals are aimed at projects that add at least one acre of impervious surface. It is rare for projects in the City to add this much new pavement or building area. More commonly redeveloped projects in the City actually decrease the total amount of impervious surfaces from earlier built conditions as site designers incorporate stormwater management and green space requirements.

The low-impact approaches, inherent in MIDS, are most easily applied in areas that have not already been developed as dense urban areas. The City of Minneapolis is one of the nation’s older, fully developed cities, with an extensive, underground stormwater drain network built to manage runoff from a dense urban pattern of streets and buildings. As a fully developed central city, many of the existing parcels in the City are not of sufficient size to fully implement Minimal Impact Design Standards performance goals. The typical small lot in the City may have insufficient separation between stormwater infiltration devices and sanitary sewer pipes, which creates the potential of the stormwater seeping into the sanitary sewer which would contribute to I/I related flows. Additionally, infiltration on Brownfield sites, those with presence of contaminated soils and/or groundwater, is not allowed by the MPCA. Other physical restrictions include poor soil conditions and utility conflicts. The City is using the MIDS goals as a foundation for developing revised regulatory controls that address volume management requirements of the NPDES Integrated Permit.

### Ongoing Stormwater Management Compliance

The Division of Surface Water and Sewers maintains a database of stormwater management practices (SMPs) that have been installed in compliance with official controls established by the City. Developers or property owners are required to submit an annual registration form that reports on the ongoing inspection and maintenance activities for each BMP.

Inspections are conducted periodically to confirm that the stormwater practices are being maintained and that the practices are continuing to function as approved. Inspections include photo documentation of the stormwater practices and follow-up for stormwater practices that are not functioning and/or properly maintained.

The NPDES Integrated Permit requires that the City establishes a legal mechanism between the site owner and the City for structural BMPs. The program is required to contain a process that allows City

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 797 -->
inspections of BMPs, transfer of maintenance responsibilities to future site owners/maintainers, and procedures that owners must follow to alter site features and/or structural BMPs.

## Utility Billing

The Minneapolis Finance Department manages all monthly utility billing, including billing for sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff. For residential customers, the sewage charges are based on the average water consumption used during the winter months of December through March. Water consumption in the winter months is used to calculate the average sewer use for the remainder for the year to account for warm weather months when water may be used for irrigation and not end up in the sewer system. This average rate is applied for the remainder of the year.

In 2005, the City adopted a stormwater utility fee structure that applies a flat rate to residential properties and an impervious surface area rate for commercial/industrial/institutional properties. A 50 percent to 100 percent credit may be applied if a property contains stormwater quality and/or stormwater quantity practices. Additional information on stormwater utility fee calculations and credits are contained in the City of Minneapolis Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Guide.

## Utility Permits

In the City, property owners are responsible for the entire length of utility existing between a building, or other location on private property, to the point of connection to the City's main sanitary sewer, as shown in Figure 5.3. Contractors are required to obtain a connection permit from the City's Utility Connections Office prior to connecting directly to the City's sanitary sewer or storm drain. Permits are also required prior to creating an extension or change to an existing privately-owned sanitary sewer or storm drain. The Utility Connections Office will request approval from the Public Works Division of Surface Water and Sewers prior to issuance of a storm drain connection permit. Detailed descriptions of required utility permits and associated requirements are contained in the City of Minneapolis Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Guide.

<!-- page 798 -->
**Figure 5.3 – Public vs. Private Sanitary Sewers in the City of Minneapolis**

<<FIGURE>>

City approval of long-term discharges of groundwater to the storm drainage system will require a Long-Term Groundwater Discharge Approval, as detailed in the City of Minneapolis Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Guide.

From time to time, a developer may propose to add an outfall directly to a waterbody in the City without connection to a City-owned storm drain. This practice is currently prohibited by the City’s Code of Ordinances. Chapter 511.30 states “No person shall build or repair any ditch, or lay or repair any pipe or conduit, for the purpose of discharging storm, surface, cooling or condenser water into the Mississippi River or any stream or watercourse within or adjacent to the boundaries of the city.” Rules and policies of the MPCA, the watershed organizations, and the City are being reviewed to clarify the proper process for application, review, and approval. After review of these procedures, the City will determine whether to amend Chapter 511.30.

## Water Permits

The Minneapolis Health Department Environmental Services is assigned the responsibility to ensure that water utilization on private property is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the City, Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota. Accordingly, they have established permit and inspection procedures in the following areas of water usage:

*   <u>Temporary Discharge of Water</u> permits are required for the intentional temporary discharge of any water into either the sanitary sewer or storm drain systems.

<!-- page 799 -->
* Groundwater Well permits are required for temporary wells, permanent wells, and sealing of wells.

* Non-Community Public Water Systems that serve individual facilities are actively inspected to ensure that the privately withdrawn groundwater meets the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Temporary and permanent groundwater discharge requirements are detailed in the City of Minneapolis Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Guide.

### Appropriations from Small Watercourses
The City and the MPRB do not allow appropriations from lakes, creeks, or wetlands in the City except when approved on a case-by-case basis for maintenance of public lands.

## Zoning Code and Land Use
The Minneapolis Zoning Administration Office of CPED is responsible for ensuring that the land use in the City of Minneapolis is in compliance with the Zoning Code. All properties are within one of 23 primary zoning districts that fall into the general categories of Residential District, Office Residence Districts, Commercial Districts, Downtown Districts, and Industrial Districts. Properties may also be within an overlay zoning district which establishes additional land use requirements. Environmental protection requirements, including water resource protection measures, have been incorporated into Minneapolis Zoning Code in the following overlay districts:

* Floodplain Overlay District zoning requirements are established in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program to maintain the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Boundaries of each Floodplain Overlay District are based on the potential extent of flooding of nearby surface waters, primarily creeks and the Mississippi River.

* Shoreland Overlay District aims to preserve the environmental qualities of the City’s surface waters and are written in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). Boundaries of each Shoreland Overlay District extend 1,000 feet from lakes, ponds, and wetlands; and, 300 feet from rivers and streams.

* Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District is a variation of the Shoreland Overlay District that specifically applies to the Mississippi River Corridor. This district’s boundaries were established by Executive Order 79-19 issued by Governor Albert Quie.

It is possible that one or more of these overlay districts may apply to an individual property in the City. Figure 5.4 shows an area of Minneapolis where all three of the above overlay districts are mapped.

<!-- page 800 -->
Figure 5.4 – Overlay Zoning Districts

<<FIGURE>>

**Overlay Districts**

| | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| ![symbol] Plate Boundaries | ![symbol] DP Downtown Parking | ![symbol] NM Nicollet Mall | ![symbol] WB West Broadway | ![symbol] 12 Plate Number | |
| ![symbol] AP Airport | ![symbol] DS Downtown Shelter | ![symbol] PO Pedestrian Oriented | ![symbol] SH Shoreland | ![symbol] Plate Boundaries | |
| ![symbol] DH Downtown Height | ![symbol] HA Harmon Area | ![symbol] TP Transitional Parking | ![symbol] MR Mississippi River Critical Area | | |
| ![symbol] DH Downtown Housing | ![symbol] IL Industrial Living | ![symbol] UA University Area | | | |

**Last Amended: July 18, 2016**
**MINNEAPOLIS ZONING PLATE 34**

<!-- page 801 -->
The 2016 Minnesota Buffer Law could affect the riparian land use and/or zoning for a small number of privately-owned properties along Bassett Creek, Ryan Creek, and some wetlands in the City. Minnesota Statute Section 103F.48, Subd.5(4) provides an exemption to the Buffer Law for municipalities governed by a MS4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This exemption applies where municipalities have provided for riparian protection within their MS4 NPDES permit, construction stormwater permit, or industrial stormwater permit. Therefore, changes to land use to meet Minnesota Buffer Law requirements are not required in Minneapolis.

## Administrative Responsibilities
The City and MPRB staff have a wide range of responsibilities and are trained to have a basic understanding of water resources management, including major stormwater management issues such as known stormwater management problem areas, stormwater management expectations for new and redevelopment projects, incorporation of stormwater mitigation into capital improvement projects, erosion and sediment control, and regulatory jurisdiction.

Staff from many City departments and MPRB work cooperatively to ensure that water resource programs are properly managed, and that official controls are enforced. Departments with the greatest involvement include CPED, Minneapolis Finance and Property Services (MFPS), Minneapolis Department of Health (MDH), Minneapolis Public Works Division of Surface Water and Sewers (PW-SWS), and Minneapolis Public Works Transportation (PW-T). Specific functions of each department are compiled into Table 5.5 and described in additional detail in the following sections.

**Table 5.5 – Responsibility for Regulatory Actions**

| Activity | CPED | MFPS | MHD | MPRB | MPW-SWS | MPW-T | Other |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| Complaints | | | V | V | V | | |
| Erosion and Sediment Control | | | V | | V | | |
| Emergency Preparedness | | | V | | V | | |
| Illicit Discharge and Detection Elimination | | | V | V | V | V | |
| Individual Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (ISST) | | | | | | | Hennepin County |
| I/I Compliance: Private Properties | | | V | | V | | |
| Public Education, Participation, & Involvement | | | | V | V | | |
| Rat, Rodent, and Insect Control | | | | | V | | |
| Site Plan Review | V | | | | V | V | |
| Utility Billing | | V | | | V | | |
| Utility Permits | | | | | V | V | |
| Water Permits | | V | V | | V | V | |
| Wetland Conservation Act Administration | | | | | V | | |
| Zoning Code Administration | V | | | | | | |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 802 -->
## Coordination with Other Government Agencies – Water Resource Programs

All staff involved in water resource management actively interact with the multiple government agencies that regulate water resources in Minnesota, including, but not limited to, agencies described in Section 1 – History and Overview of Minneapolis Water Resources. The City will continue to collaborate with these agencies to provide the most efficient and effective water resource management with minimal duplication of efforts.

## Assessment of Minneapolis Water Resource Programs

The status and compliance with the following specific programs are highlighted based on requirements for this Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) as set by Metropolitan Council and/or watershed organizations:

* **MPCA Construction General Permit New BMP Requirements.** The MPCA requirement to incorporate stormwater controls into projects that create one acre or more of new impervious surface is rarely triggered on development and redevelopment projects within the City. Instead, the City implemented a program that requires stormwater controls for all developments with land disturbance of one acre or greater, regardless of the increase or decrease of impervious surface. This approach has resulted in more onsite stormwater management than would have resulted if the City opted to rely solely on the MPCA Construction General Permit. Since the City requirement is more restrictive than the MPCA requirement established in the MPCA Construction General Permit, it can be concluded that the City standards are more restrictive than the MPCA requirements.

* **MIDS Flexible Treatment Options.** The City of Minneapolis supports the concept of stormwater volume control through site designs that minimize the generation of runoff and through onsite infiltration of the runoff that is generated. MIDS was developed as a voluntary program. There is no specific state requirement that cities must impose MIDS standards on projects; however, some watershed districts and management organizations have adopted MIDS standards. The City is using the MIDS goals and MIDS Flexible Treatment Options specific to ultra-urban conditions as a guide to determine locations where achieving MIDS goals is not feasible as a foundation for developing revised regulatory controls that address volume management requirements of the NPDES Integrated Permit. This will be incorporated in the changes to the City’s stormwater management official controls that will be completed in 2018.

* **Anti-Degradation Requirements.** The state anti-degradation requirements are met in the City through a number of programs that reduce impervious cover, reduce discharges, and add structural BMPs to reduce runoff volume and pollutant loads.

* **Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).** The City complies with the requirements of the WCA by requiring wetland delineation and wetland mitigation plan for all developments that propose to alter a wetland within the City. The City will continue to coordinate with watershed organizations if a wetland is proposed to be affected to ensure that WCA and watershed organization requirements are met.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 803 -->
*   **Watershed Management Organization Requirements.** An important objective of the City is to ensure that property owners and developers are not faced with conflicts in stormwater management objectives between state, watershed organization, and City requirements. If a conflict does arise, the City works closely with the affected watershed organization and developer to find a solution that is acceptable to all and not detrimental to the water resource. The City will continue to coordinate with watershed management organizations to ensure that the 2018 update to the stormwater management official controls meets the most current watershed management objectives.

*   **Regulatory Controls for BCWMC Flood Control Projects.** The City owns, maintains, and operates two Bassett Creek tunnels. The City is required to ensure that no modifications happen that will add new tributary area, flows, connections, or outlets to the new tunnel without proper vetting and ensuring that there will be no negative impacts to the flood control projects. The City is required to maintain 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity in the "old" Bassett Creek tunnel during the 100-year storm event to accommodate the overflow of stormwater that cannot be accommodated in the "new" tunnel.

*   **Inflow/Infiltration Program.** The primary source of I/I from private properties within the City has historically been from direct connections of rooftop runoff to the sanitary sewer, also called rainleaders or roof drains. The aggressive program to locate, inspect, and disconnect the rainleaders, has been an important factor in the deterrence of CSOs since 2007. The City intends to continue to inspect private rainleaders and enforce the rainleader official controls to continue to reduce the peak flows that are discharged to Metropolitan Council interceptors.

*   **Private Outfalls.** City ordinance prohibits the creation of new privately owned stormwater outfalls that discharge directly to surface waters. To-date, the enforcement of this prohibition has been inconsistently applied. The City will work internally to set up specific responsibilities to ensure that private stormwater outfalls are not installed as part of future private development or redevelopment projects.

## Change That Would Be Adequate to Meet Performance Standards or Official Controls

This WRMP’s impact will be to foster collaborative efforts, where each entity does what it does best without another entity duplicating those efforts. In this vein, the City will assume the lead in infrastructure management and construction; MPRB will assume the lead in water quality monitoring and management of park lands; and the watershed organizations will assume the lead in supporting clean water through water resource management and protection.

The WRMP envisions the City and its watershed management organizations will strive to:

*   Collaborate on site plan reviews before permit issuance in cases where construction stormwater management comes under review of both the watershed organization and the City, including proposals to construct new outfalls directly to surface waters.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 804 -->
* Cooperate to enforce official controls, including erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and floodplain alteration requirements.

* Participate in cost-sharing for water quality controls, modeling, and feasibility studies.

* Share modeling, monitoring, and project data and analysis.

The City will continue to seek opportunities to partner with watershed management organizations as stormwater management projects are proposed and under development. The City will involve watershed management organizations and other stakeholders in the process to amend official controls to address regulatory stormwater management, wetland buffer, and floodplain management.

<!-- page 805 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 806 -->
# Section 6 – Planning and Implementation

## Overview

The City of Minneapolis (City) has well-established programs that protect, maintain, and improve surface water quality. The intent of this section of the Minneapolis Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) is to describe the City’s structure and process for ongoing management of and changes to the City’s water resource management projects and programs.

## Water Resource Management Financing

The City’s budget is adopted annually and establishes the finances for the year following adoption. Future budgets, such as 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plans, are presented for planning purposes, yet there is no certainty that future funding will come to fruition. The most current budget, available on the City’s Finance and Budget website, should be referenced for information on the financial status of the sanitary sewer and stormwater programs.

### Revenue

The total annual budget for the Public Works activities is funded primarily by revenue from the Sanitary Sewer Fund and the Stormwater Fund, supplemented by grants and cost-share agreements described below. Total revenue collected from the sources described in this section is not expected to increase, other than modest adjustments based on inflation. The amount budgeted towards specific activities is likely to be adjusted each year, based on changes in priorities or regulatory requirements.

These sources represent most of the revenue that supports the Sanitary Sewer Fund and the Stormwater Fund:

*   **Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee.** The sanitary sewer utility fee is charged to customers each month through the City’s utility bill. The fee is computed based on a charge per 100 cubic feet (equivalent to 748 gallons) of water used, plus a monthly fixed charge based on the size of the customer’s water meter. Since there are no wastewater meters, the monthly wastewater use is based on the water used by each customer during the winter quarter. Fees are reviewed on an annual basis and adjusted as needed.

*   **Stormwater Utility Fee.** In 2005, the City implemented a stormwater utility fee, which is charged to customers each month through the City’s utility bill. Prior to that time, the sanitary sewer utility fee was used to fund both sanitary and stormwater expenditures. Stormwater utility fees are calculated using property size, impervious surface measurements, or land use category factors and a monthly rate. Single family residential properties are charged according to a three-tier monthly equivalent stormwater unit (ESU) as the base fee, with the other tiers being slightly lower or higher (25 percent lower or 25 percent higher) based on property area. The monthly rate is reviewed on an annual basis as part of the budget process.

*   **Sewer Bonds.** Although this is not an explicit source of revenue, the City may opt to issue sewer bonds to raise money to pay for infrastructure upgrades and replacement. The sale of bonds

<!-- page 807 -->
allows the City to spread the payment of a capital improvement project over a period, typically 10 to 20 years. The debt service on these bonds is paid through the Sanitary Sewer Fund or the Stormwater Fund, as appropriate.

*   **Special Assessments.** Assessments against benefitting or responsible properties are used to finance improvements. This is a small revenue source that is applied to specific benefitted properties for selected capital improvement projects.

*   **Grants and Cost-Share Agreements.** Though subject to budgetary constraints, state and other grant programs and cost-share opportunities are available for water resource management projects and programs. These revenue sources are used on a case-by-case basis, dependent on the proposed project or activity, and the limitations of the funds. In the recent past, the City has received water resource funding from the following agencies, grants, and cost-share programs:

    *   Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.

    *   Clean Water Fund of the Minnesota Clean Water and Legacy Amendment.

    *   Hennepin County Natural Resource Opportunity Grant.

    *   Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources/Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund.

    *   Metropolitan Council Parks and Open Space.

    *   Metropolitan Council Metro Environment Program.

    *   Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.

    *   Minnesota Legislature Direct Appropriation.

    *   Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Flood Mitigation.

    *   Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Habitat.

    *   Mississippi Watershed Management Organization.

    *   Public Facilities Authority (PFA) Loans.

    *   Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission.

*   **Miscellaneous Revenue.** Other revenue sources include fines, license fees, and permit fees. These revenue sources are relatively small and can vary greatly from year to year.

The MRPB and Environmental Services Department with the City also have responsibilities with regards to water resource protection. They fund their responsibilities through a combination of user fees, permit fees, and general fund.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 808 -->
## Expenditures

The City invests in water resource management within the framework of its current capital and operating budgets, established by the City Council and approved by the Mayor on an annual basis. Prioritization is critical to ensure that the capital improvement projects and regulatory programs stay within limits of available revenue. Five-year projections of future project and program expenditures are listed in the City's annual budgets but are subject to considerable change.

The 2018 total annual budget for water resources-related activities by the City is approximately $91 million, of which $59.4 million is the sanitary sewer budget and $31.6 million is the stormwater budget. In recent years, the annual budget has experienced moderate increases, as demonstrated in Table 6.1. These budget figures do not include budgets or expenditures for the drinking water treatment and distribution programs.

**Table 6.1 – City of Minneapolis Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Operating Budget, 2015 through 2018**

| | 2015 (actual) | 2016 (actual) | 2017 (actual) | 2018 (adopted) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Sanitary Sewer | $48,892,414 | $52,013,183 | $54,148,859 | $59,450,203 |
| Stormwater | $26,082,314 | $28,560,507 | $29,033,661 | $31,655,363 |
| Total | $74,974,728 | $80,573,690 | $83,182,520 | $91,105,566 |

The largest expenditure from these budgets, which represents approximately half of the total of the City water resource management budget, is the annual payment to Metropolitan Council for wastewater services, which in 2018 is projected to be $41.3 million. The remainder is utilized by the City for capital improvement and operational (or non-capital) expenses, which are described in the following sections. A snapshot of the 2017 expenditures of the Sanitary Fund and Stormwater Fund is shown in Figure 6.1.

All the expense categories described in this section are financed through the Sanitary Sewer Fund and/or the Stormwater Fund.

<!-- page 809 -->
**Figure 6.1 – 2017 Sanitary Sewer Fund and Stormwater Fund Distribution**

<<FIGURE>>

### Capital Improvement Program

The City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget is developed in an open process that starts with City department proposals, which are reviewed in detail by a citizen’s committee ([CLIC – Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee](https://example.com)) and the Mayor. The City Council holds public hearings before final budget adoption, which typically occurs in December of each year. The City’s [2018 CIP](https://example.com) identifies all

<!-- page 810 -->
water resource-related projects programmed by the City for construction in 2017. The most current information is available on the City’s Budget website.

Table 6.2 represents the 5-year Capital Improvement Program as submitted to CLIC for the 2019 to 2023 budget cycle.

#### Table 6.2 – Minneapolis Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Capital Improvement Budget, 2019-2023

| Program | Fund Sources | 2019 ($1000) | 2020 ($1000) | 2021 ($1000) | 2022 ($1000) | 2023 ($1000) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Infiltration and Inflow Mitigation Program | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Revenue | $3,500 | $3,500 | $3,500 | $3,500 | $3,500 |
| Sanitary Tunnel & Sewer Rehab | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Revenue | $16,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 |
| Implementation of EPA Stormwater Regulations | Stormwater Revenue | $250 | $250 | $250 | $250 | $250 |
| Combined Sewer Overflow Improvements | Stormwater Revenue | $1,500 | $1,500 | $1,500 | $1,500 | $1,500 |
| Storm Drains and Tunnels Rehab Program | Stormwater Bonds Stormwater Revenue | $6,000 | $6,000 | $6,000 | $6,000 | $6,000 |
| I-35W Storm Tunnel Reconstruction | Stormwater Bonds | - | - | - | - | $1,000 |
| Flood Mitigation – Stormwater Alternatives | Stormwater Bonds Stormwater Revenue | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
| Central City Parallel Storm Tunnel | Stormwater Bonds Stormwater Revenue | - | $11,000 | $11,000 | $11,000 | - |

As noted in Table 6.2, sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage projects are grouped into general categories of funding. As described in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment, the City is in the process of fully evaluating the condition, capacity, and water quality needs of the sanitary sewer and stormwater systems. After these evaluations are completed in 2018, the City plans to develop an integrated infrastructure planning program to maximize public investments that minimize risk to human health and the environment, prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage, minimizes the risk of release of raw sewage to the Mississippi River, and improves water quality of all receiving waterbodies. The purpose of this evaluation will be to identify and prioritize future Capital Improvement Projects that will be funded in the categories that are described below.

* **Inflow/Infiltration Mitigation Program** funds are used to implement projects that will reduce the amount of clear water in the sanitary system and reduce the risks for overflow of untreated sewage mixed with stormwater to the Mississippi River during severe rainstorms. The reduction of clear water in the sanitary sewer system is also required by Metropolitan Council which provides regional wastewater collection and treatment. In 2013, Metropolitan Council implemented an ongoing surcharge program to require communities to continue to make progress in removing inflow/infiltration (I/I) from the system. Reduction of I/I also reduces the total volume of wastewater sent to the treatment plant and therefore reduces the amount of money the City has to pay Metropolitan Council for wastewater treatment. Actions typically include pipe lining, bulkhead repairs, manhole repairs, and other structural rehabilitation.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 811 -->
* **Sanitary Tunnel and Sewer Rehab Program** funds repair and rehabilitate tunnels, pipes, lift stations, and access structures, as prioritized by the Minneapolis Public Works Surface Water and Sewers Division. Efforts to repair and rehabilitate the sanitary sewer system have concentrated on structural failures, improved access to the deep collection tunnels, and proper maintenance of lift stations. Condition assessments have been made to comprehensively address the aging system in order to improve its reliability. The installation of a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system is a key component for efficient management of the lift stations. Ongoing work includes replacing worn out components, rehabilitation or removal of system structural flow restrictions, and manhole repairs. The City is using an asset management framework to move from emergency reaction response to a planned rehabilitation program in order to minimize repair costs and liabilities, as well as to maximize work force efficiencies. Sanitary sewers and stormwater drains that have been identified as having the greatest need of rehabilitation are identified in Figure 6.2. Pipes are evaluated using the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) standard condition scale of 1 to 5. Condition ratings 4 and 5 are those that have been identified as the most critical.

<!-- page 812 -->
### Figure 6.2 – Sanitary Sewers and Stormwater Drains with Maximum Condition Ratings

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 813 -->
* **Implementation of United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Stormwater Regulations** contains individual projects to mitigate the pollution effects of urbanization on stormwater runoff. Capital projects related to structural improvements necessary for compliance with TMDL requirements may be funded through this program. Installation of many of the future structural stormwater management practices will be prioritized based on water quality needs, as well as the ability to collaborate with other Public Works improvement projects. Coordination with street reconstruction projects will allow the City to optimize construction costs and minimize public disruption. Future street construction projects are identified in Figure 6.3.

This program will be the funding source for the local share of the following potential projects that will be led by watershed organizations:

* BCWMC: Bryn Mawr Meadows Water Quality Improvement Project (2019)
* BCWMC: Restoration and Stabilization of Historic Bassett Creek Channel (2021)
* BCWMC: Bassett Creek Park Water Quality Improvement Project (2024)
* MCWD: Minnehaha Parkway Stormwater Management (2020-2021)
* MCWD: Stormwater Volume and Pollutant Load Reduction (2018-2027)
* MWMO: Greening within the Public Right-of-Way/8^th Street Green Infrastructure Pilot Project (2018-2019)
* SCWMC: Flood Area #5 Water Quality Projects (2018-2022)

**Downtown Trees Planted within Underground Stormwater Cells**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

* **Combined Sewer Overflow Improvements Program** was originally established in the mid-1980s, as detailed in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment to remove inflow from public sources and provide facilities for private disconnections where no storm drain currently exists in the area. The program complements the I/I Removal Program. The projects to be constructed in this CSO Improvements Program are shown in Figure 6.4.

<!-- page 814 -->
#### Figure 6.3 – Street Reconstruction Projects

<<FIGURE>>

City of Minneapolis
### 5 Year Street Reconstruction Projects

| | | Project Year | | | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <<FIGURE>> | The City adopts a five-year CIP that is updated annually. Projects shown are subject to change in location and programming year. | — 2019 | — 2021 | 🟦 | Water Bodies |
| | | — 2020 | — 2022 | ⬜ | Minneapolis Boundary |
| | | | — 2023 | | |

<!-- page 815 -->
### Figure 6.4 – Combined Sewer Overflow Project Areas

<<FIGURE>>

#### 2018 & 2019 Projects
CSO 001 - 22nd Ave N & 2nd St N  
CSO 117 - 2nd St N & 23rd Ave N  
CSO 176 - 18th Ave N & 5th St N  
CSO 177 - 10th Ave N & 8th Ave N  
CSO 188 - 6th St S & Park Ave  
CSO 189 - 8th St S & Park Ave

#### Future Projects
CSO 095 - Alley west of Cedar Ave & south of 47th St E  
CSO 098 - Alley north of 33rd Av NE & east of Tyler St NE  
CSO 108 - Polk St NE & 35th Ave NE  
CSO 138 - Xerxes Ave N & Lowry Ave N  
CSO 139 - Washburn Ave N & Osseo Rd  
CSO 149 - Bryant Ave S & 40th St W  
CSO 151 - 39th St W & Dupont Ave S  
CSO 153 - Alley south of 25th St W east of Colfax Ave S  
CSO 154 - Coolidge St NE & 19th Ave NE  
CSO 158 - 24th Ave S & 54th St E  
CSO 163 - Hennepin Ave & Franklin Ave W  
CSO 164 - Alley south of Spring St NE east of Madison St NE  
CSO 165 - South of I94 & 1st Ave S  
CSO 172 - 33rd Ave N & Irving Ave N  
CSO 181 - 50th St W & Aldrich Ave S  
CSO 183 - Alley south of 47th St W & west of Wentworth Ave S  
CSO 184 - 4th Ave S & 36th St E  
CSO 185 - 17th St E & Chicago Ave  
CSO 186 - 17th St E & 11th Ave S  
CSO 187 - 14th Ave NE & Van Buren St NE  
CSO 191 - 51st St E and 4th Ave S  
CSO 192 - Monroe St NE and 19th Ave NE  
CSO 193 - Main St NE & 4th Ave NE

<!-- page 816 -->
*   **Storm Drains and Tunnels Rehab Program** is similar to the Sanitary Sewer and Tunnel Rehab Program, except that the funds are used to repair and rehabilitate the condition and/or the capacity of the storm drain and tunnel systems. A 2012 study completed on the storm drain tunnels found that typical problems include voids above or below the tunnel structure, cracking due to pressurization, erosion of the tunnel floor, and infiltration of groundwater. Currently, the Public Works Department is conducting repairs on those considered most critical. The cost to repair these tunnels varies with the magnitude of the problem. As with the sanitary system, the City is utilizing asset management tools to move from emergency reaction response to a planned rehabilitation program in order to minimize repair costs and liabilities, as well as to maximize work force efficiencies. Sanitary sewers and stormwater drains that have been identified as having the greatest need of rehabilitation are identified in Figure 6.2. NASSCO Condition Ratings 4 and 5 are those that have been identified as the most critical.

**Minneapolis Central City Tunnel Survey**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: CDM Smith*

*   **Flood Mitigation Program – Stormwater Alternatives** addresses localized flooding and drainage problems. The programs look at volume, load, and rate controls and aim to protect homes and businesses and improve water quality. Hydraulic and hydrologic modeling is being done citywide to determine the extent of the localized problems. When modeling is completed in 2018, flood areas will be evaluated. Areas found to be a highest risk for flooding will be subject to feasibility studies. The results of the feasibility studies will inform selection and prioritization of solutions considering constructability and costs, as well as the need to leverage other opportunities and funding. Solutions for larger-scale drainage problems may include underground storage, pipes, and ponds in combination with green infrastructure such as rain gardens, bioswales, constructed wetlands, and pervious pavements. Future projects for this funding category will be informed by the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling effort described in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory,

**37th and Columbus Flood Pond**

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Minneapolis Public Works*

<!-- page 817 -->
Activities, and Assessment. A preliminary indication of the likely areas in need of hydraulic improvement is shown in Figure 6.5, which shows the flood areas identified in 1999 and 2005.

This program will be the funding source for the local share of the following potential projects that will be led by watershed organizations:

* MCWD: Hiawatha Golf Course Restoration (2020-2021)
* MWMO: 1NE Flood Mitigation and Water Quality Improvements (2018-2020)

<!-- page 818 -->
# Figure 6.5 – Current Flood Mitigation Study Areas

<<FIGURE>>

## Current Flood Mitigation Study Areas

<!-- page 819 -->
*   **Central City Parallel Storm Tunnel** – This project includes design and construction of a new parallel tunnel in the Central City to improve system operations. The system, built from 1939 to 1940, was designed to handle the downtown drainage requirements of that time. Land development has since created a significant increase in the amount of impervious surface, and as a result, an increase in the rate and volume of stormwater directed into the Central City tunnels. The result is over-pressurization that causes degradation of the tunnel liner and erosion of the sandstone behind the tunnel liner. The goal of the project is to reduce this pressurization and ultimately reduce the risk of failure and extend the tunnel’s service life. The proposed upgrade is to construct a new parallel tunnel for the Washington Avenue segment, starting at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Hennepin Avenue and ending approximately 150 feet from the outfall at the Mississippi River, as shown in Figure 6.6. Feasibility studies and design are underway and will be followed by three years of construction starting in 2020.

**Figure 6.6 – Proposed Central City Parallel Tunnel Alignment**

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 820 -->
### Operational Programs

The Public Works Division of Surface Water and Sewers manages or provides funds for the following programs established to manage water resource activities in the City:

*   **Operation and Maintenance.** Those operations and maintenance (O&M) activities described in Section 4 – Infrastructure Inventory, Activities, and Assessment are financed entirely through the Sanitary Sewer Fund and the Stormwater Fund.

*   **Street Cleaning.** The Stormwater Fund provides funds to operate the City’s street cleaning operations.

*   **Compliance with EPA Regulations.** This includes non-capital activities necessary to comply with the NPDES stormwater permit and other water resource-related requirements, which are described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs. The Stormwater Fund finances these activities that include inspections, monitoring, public education, public participation, and annual reports. Activities related to TMDL compliance would be funded through this program.

*   **Watershed Organization Contributions.** The MCWD and MWMO have taxing authority and obtain all of their Capital Improvement and operational funds through a direct property tax levy. Capital Improvement funds for BCWMC and SCWMC are levied through Hennepin County. The City of Minneapolis, through the Stormwater Fund, directly contributes funds for the BCWMC and SCWMC operating budgets. Contributions are assessed on an annual basis and are based on a formula that takes into account the total area of each member city within the watershed and the net tax capacity of all property within the watershed. The 2016 WMO contributions from the City amounted to:
    *   BCWMC $32,885
    *   SCWMC $21,948

#### Spring Street Sweeping

<<FIGURE>>

Credit: Minneapolis Public Works

#### Stormwater Outfall Inspection

<<FIGURE>>

Credit: Minneapolis Public Works

<!-- page 821 -->
*   **Metropolitan Council Contribution.** The annual fee for wastewater treatment of sanitary sewage generated in the City is financed primarily by the Sanitary Sewer Fund (95 percent), with a small contribution from the Stormwater Fund (5 percent). The 2016 payments from the City amounted to $39,190,278.

*   **Inflow/Infiltration Compliance.** The sanitary sewer utility finances the non-capital I/I activities, which includes monitoring, metering, inspections, smoke testing, analysis, and annual reports.

*   **Sewer Availability Charges Program.** Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) are collected by the City based on criteria established by the Metropolitan Council. All fees collected are paid directly to the Metropolitan Council. The 2016 payment from the City amounted to $8,987,030.

## Project and Program Implementation

### Framework

The City promulgates programs that creates a framework for prioritization of individual projects. A specific project begins because of a specific need or regulatory requirement. Existing conditions are assessed, coordination with partners is initiated, planning occurs, and then the improvement is implemented. While the general steps are similar for program implementation, specific project considerations and coordination needs will differ. For example, some projects are born out of a need to address pipe condition and risk of infrastructure failure. Others may arise because of the need to address aging infrastructure associated with a street reconstruction project. Still others are initiated based on the need to address water quality concerns or mitigate flooding. Regardless, all projects are selected based on deliberate review of assessment data and need to coordinate and work cooperatively with partners.

The lifecycle of water resources management activities includes three principle phases: assessment, planning, and implementation, including ongoing maintenance or management costs for the life of the project or program. Components of each include:

*   **Assessment** involves an array of techniques to validate whether water resource management practices and infrastructure meet critical City efficiency objectives, such as: structural integrity; ability to relieve impacts to health, safety, property, infrastructure, and aquatic life; and, regulatory compliance. Activities include inspection, monitoring, routine record-keeping, and emergency response readiness. Assessment involves coordination and communicaiton with potential project partners.

*   **Planning** uses the findings from the assessment phase to identify capital, operational, regulatory, and administrative measures to cost-effectively address critical impacts. Planning activities are initiated once a problem has been identified in the assessment phase or when a new regulation is being promulgated by a public agency.

*   **Implementation** puts plans to action by construction of capital improvements, alterations of maintenance activities, and enforcement of regulations.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 822 -->
Additional activities needed to meet water resource management goals are implemented when it is determined that the additional activity will add increased value to those already in place. All new activities are developed under the auspices of the implementation framework. In addition to preliminary communication and coordination during data review and assessment, for each proposed new activity, stakeholders are consulted, a detailed scope is developed, budgets are proposed, and authorization to proceed begins after approval by the City Council and Mayor.

### Prioritization

The approach utilized by the City for prioritization of water resource management projects and activities is set up to balance system needs and the need to maximize investment of public dollars. Included as considerations in prioritization are asset management recommendations, capacity analysis, water quality modeling results, cost-effectiveness, and the need to leverage opportunities associated with other ongoing projects (e.g., street reconstruction).

A high/medium/low system is applied to the Implementation Program described below. Highest priority is given to action related to the health and safety of citizens, to infrastructure improvements identified as critical, and to those mandated by the City's NPDES Integrated Permit, including TMDL compliance activities. Medium priority projects and program implementation are those that are important to the integrity of the City's infrastructure and those that have City-wide significance. Low priority is given to projects that are important, but not critical, and to those that have a localized significance as opposed to a City-wide significance.

The City will continue to program water resource projects and programs based on this prioritization approach, which has proven to be both effective and flexible. Changes to prioritization of CIP projects, based on results of ongoing inspections and assessments, will occur on an annual basis as a City revises its CIP program each year.

### Implementation Program

The City has created a comprehensive program that is designed to be flexible such that it can adjust to changes of needs and priorities. This iterative, robust program complies with all current regulatory responsibilities while also providing for management of the City's aging water resource infrastructure. As described previously in this section, the City works on a 5-year schedule towards implementation of capital improvements and water resource management activities. Additional projects, which are anticipated for implementation in years 6 through 10, are documented by staff, but are not developed in any significant detail until a project is added to the 5-year program.

Appendix K includes a full list of the Capital Improvement Projects and other stormwater management activities that the City intends to pursue during the 10-year planning period of this WRMP. The CIP projects and the stormwater management improvements slated for the first 5 years have been approved by the City Council and the Mayor and are actively being developed. Projects and other activities programmed for the later years of the 10-year cycle are subject to significant changes as other assessment programs identify critical deficiencies, as other priorities arise, new City Council goals are established, and as other project specific challenges are discovered.

<!-- page 823 -->
Each year, the City will continue to adjust water resource management projects and activities to ensure that its programs are fully compliant with regulatory requirements. Once costs are identified for new projects or activities, project schedules will be developed and all projects or activities within a specific program will be revised to accommodate the new requirement. This iterative approach applies to new regulatory requirements, as well as newly identified infrastructure maintenance or rehabilitation needs.

## Capital Improvement Program

The CIP section of Appendix K lists infrastructure improvement projects that have been identified as having benefits to the sanitary sewer system and to the stormwater drainage infrastructure. The list includes projects that will be led by the City, as well as those that the City will contribute funds which will be led by others (MPRB and watershed organizations).

Ongoing investigations have the potential to identify new improvements that would benefit the water resources of the City which could be given higher priority than projects in the current 5-year CIP, including:

*   Development of the **Asset Management Program** has allowed the City to transition from a reactive, emergency response approach to infrastructure maintenance, to a proactive, planned rehabilitation program that identifies infrastructure condition issues. Newly identified issues such as risk or condition may cause an adjustment to the prioritization of rehabilitation projects.
*   Completion of the **XPSWMM Systemwide Storm Sewer Modeling** in 2018 will allow the City to identify and prioritize improvement projects to mitigate localized flooding and provide capacity in the system. The modeling work will also help inform rehabilitation, development, and street improvement projects.
*   Information developed through the **Pipeshed Delineation and Water Quality Modeling** project will be used to estimate load reductions from the approximately 1,000 public and private structural best management practices (BMPs) in the City, by outfall. This information will help prioritize retrofit and water quality improvements projects based on TMDLs and other water quality factors.
*   Subwatershed Assessment study being conducted by the SCWMC is assessing the land area in the City that drains to Shingle Creek, Ryan Lake, and Crystal Lake. Once this assessment is completed, the City will work with the SCWMC and the MPRB to implement recommendations to improve water quality and to meet TMDL requirements in impacted waterbodies. Projects within the watershed will likely be led by the City, while projects within MPRB properties, including instream and streambank projects, will likely be led by MPRB with cooperation from the City.

Appendix K contains a comprehensive list of projects identified in Figure 6.2 (Pipes with Maximum Condition Ratings), Figure 6.3 (Street Reconstruction Projects), Figure 6.4 (CSO Project Areas), and Figure 6.5 (Current Flood Mitigation Study Areas).

<!-- page 824 -->
# Stormwater Management Program

The Stormwater Management Program is on a 5-year implementation cycle, which is driven by the City’s NPDES Integrated Permit. The current permit period expires in 2022, at which time the MPCA could significantly alter the priorities and specific activities listed in Appendix K.

The highest priority project identified by the City and described in Section 5 – Regulatory Controls and Water Resource Management Programs is to revise the City’s official controls, beginning with revisions to the City’s stormwater management ordinance, commonly called Chapter 54. The City is committed to updating their official controls through a comprehensive stakeholder process that will involve multiple external stakeholders, including watershed organizations, builders, and developers, as well as interested citizens. The following schedule has been established that anticipates revisions to Chapter 54 within the 180-day period following City adoption of this WRMP:

October 2018

* Prepare first draft of ordinance revisions
* Complete internal reviews
* Develop a list of potential external stakeholders

November 2018

* Incorporate internal review comments into second draft
* Solicit interest from specific stakeholders

December 2018

* Conduct two external stakeholder meetings

January 2019

* Incorporate external review comments into third draft

February 2019

* Internal review of final draft ordinance

March 2019

* City Council reading and adoption

The other official controls that are anticipated to be updated in accordance with the prioritization and schedule set in Appendix K include revisions to the City’s SWMP to be in compliance with the newly issued NPDES Integrated Permit, strengthening the wetland and wetland buffer mitigation procedures contained in the Minneapolis Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer Development Guide, and updates to the City’s floodplain management requirements.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 825 -->
All other stormwater management activities listed in Appendix K are to be implemented in accordance with the current NPDES Integrated Permit, as detailed in the current and future revisions of the the Minneapolis SWMP.

<!-- page 826 -->
# Section 7 – References and Acknowledgements

## References

| Report Section | Reference |
| :--- | :--- |
| Section 1 | Two Pines Resource Group. *Native American Context Statement and Reconnaissance Level Survey Supplement*. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development. Minneapolis, Minnesota. July 2016. |
| Section 1 | City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit*. Minneapolis, Minnesota. July 21, 2015. |
| Section 2 | United States Environmental Protection Agency. *Impact and Control of CSOs and SSOs*. EPA 833-R-04-001. August 2004. |
| Section 2 | Metropolitan Council. *2040 Water Resources Policy Plan*. Saint Paul, Minnesota. 2015. |
| Section 2 Section 3 | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. *2015-2025 Watershed Management Plan*. September 2015. |
| Section 2 Section 3 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. *Watershed Management Plan, Draft*. July 2017. |
| Section 2 Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Third Generation Watershed Plan*. Prepared for Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. April 2013. |
| Section 2 Section 3 | Emmons and Olivier Resources, Barr Engineering. *Watershed Management Plan, 2011-2021*. Prepared for the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. November 2016. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan*. Prepared for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. April 2007, Amended July 25, 3013. |
| Section 3 | Minnesota Geological Society. *Geologic Atlas Users’ Guide: Using Geologic Maps and Databases for Resource Management and Planning*. Open-File Report OFR-12-1. 2012. |
| Section 3 | Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. *Above the Falls: Regional Park Master Plan (draft)*. June 2013. |
| Section 3 | Fish and Wildlife Work Group Resources Forum. *Environmental Pool Plans: Mississippi River Pools 1-10*. January 2004. |
| Section 3 | Heiskary, S., Wasley, D. *Mississippi River Pools 1 through 8: Developing River, Pool and Lake Pepin Eutrophication Criteria*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. September 2012. |
| Section 3 | Markus, H. *Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards Draft Technical Support Document for Total Suspended Solids (Turbidity), 2011 Triennial Water Quality Standard Amendments to Minn. R. chs. 7050 and 7052*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. May 2011. |
| Section 3 | Anderson, P., Christopherson, D., DeZiel, B., Duffey, D., Genet, J., Monson, B., Nelson, S. *Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. September 2013. |
| Section 3 | Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. *Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Study and Protection Plan*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. November 2014. |
| Section 3 | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. *Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan*. March 2016. |
| Section 3 | Metropolitan Council. *Comprehensive Water Quality Assessment of Select Metropolitan Area Streams*. 2014. |
| Section 3 | Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. *Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Study and Protection Plan*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. November 2014. |
| Section 3 | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. *Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan*. February 2016. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 827 -->
| Report Section | Reference |
| :--- | :--- |
| Section 3 | Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. *Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Pollutant Loading Study (HPPLS)*. Prepared for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2003. |
| Section 3 | University of Minnesota. *Baseflow Restoration in Minnehaha Creek Watershed with Stormwater Infiltration*. Prepared for the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2014. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *2014 MCWD Flood Report*. Prepared for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. December 2015. |
| Section 3 | Stach LJ, Simpson MH, Gruber J, Moore TL, Yetka L, Eberhart L, Gulliver J, Smith J, Mamayek T, Anderson M, Rhoades J. *Long-term climate information and forecasts supporting stakeholder-driven adaptation decisions for urban water resources: Response to climate change and population growth. Final project report: Sectoral Applications Research Program FY2011*. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2014. |
| Section 3 | Tetra Tech, Inc. *Minnehaha Creek E. Coli Bacteria/Lake Hiawatha Nutrients, Total Maximum Daily Load*. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 5, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. October 2013. |
| Section 3 | Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. *MCWD Lakes TMDL – Lake Nokomis, Parley Lake, Lake Virginia, Wassermann Lake*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. February 2011. |
| Section 3 | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. *Bacterial TMDL Protocols and Submittal Requirements*. March 2009. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Shingle Creek and Bass Creek Biota and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL*. Prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. November 2011. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Shingle Creek and Bass Creek Biota and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Implementation Plan*. Prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. January 2012. |
| Section 3 | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. *Minnesota Statewide Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load – Final*. March 2007. |
| Section 3 | Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. *Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Project, Final Report*. Minnesota Clean Water Partnership Program Project Implementation Grant 941-2-059-27. July 2001. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Crystal Lake Nutrient TMDL – Final*. Prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. October 2008. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Crystal Lake Nutrient TMDL Implementation Plan – Final*. Prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. May 2009. |
| Section 3 | GeoSyntec Consultants. *Guidelines for Evaluating and Selecting Modifications to Existing Roadway Drainage Infrastructure to Improve Water Quality in Ultra-Urban Areas. Vol. 728*. Transportation Research Board. 2012. |
| Section 3 | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. *Calhoun Wetland Pond: 1999 Performance Report*. 1999. |
| Section 3 | Blue Water Commission. *Report and Recommendations for the Management of Lake Nokomis and Lake Hiawatha*. Prepared for the Hale, Page, Diamond Lake Community Association, Nokomis East Neighborhood Association, and the Standish Ericsson Neighborhood Association. May 1998. |
| Section 3 | WSB and Associates, Inc. *Taft Lake/Legion Lake Watershed Water Quality Improvement Project*. Prepared for the City of Richfield. August 2012. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Twin and Ryan Lake Nutrient TMDL*. Prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. October 200. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Twin and Ryan Lake Nutrient TMDL Implementation Plan*. Prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. November 2007. |
| Section 3 | Wenck Associates, Inc. *Twin and Ryan Lake Nutrient TMDL, Five Year Review*. Prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. December 2014. |

<!-- page 828 -->
| Report Section | Reference |
| :--- | :--- |
| Section 3 | Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. *Silver Lake TMDL*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Three Rivers Park District. May 2010. |
| Section 3 | Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. *Silver Lake TMDL Implementation Plan*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. September 2010. |
| Section 3 | Barr Engineering. *Wirth Lake Total Maximum Daily Load Report*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. September 2010. |
| Section 3 | Barr Engineering. *Wirth Lake Final TMDL Implementation Plan*. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. September 2010. |
| Section 3 | Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. *Wirth Lake Watershed and Lake Management Plan*. May 1996. |
| Section 3 | City of Minneapolis. *Source Water Protection Plan, Part I, Delineated Source Water Protection and Sensitivity and Susceptibility Analysis*. May 2005. |
| Section 3 | City of Minneapolis. *Source Water Protection Plan, Part II, Potential Contaminant Source Inventory and Management Strategy*. March 2009. |
| Section 3 | Upper Mississippi River Source Water Protection Project. *MapFeeder*. Accessed December 5, 2017. |
| Section 3 | Aquatic Invasive Species Work Group. *Zebra Mussel Action Plan*. Prepared for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2017. |
| Section 3 | Healthy Lakes and Rivers Partnership Committee, Friends of Diamond Lake. *Diamond Lake Management Plan, Minneapolis Minnesota*. Prepared for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. October 2009. |
| Section 4 | Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Environmental Management. *Water Resources Report*. 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. |
| Section 4 | SRF Consulting Group, Inc. *XP-SWMM Hydrology and Hydraulics, Model Development Guidance Manual*. Prepared for the City of Minneapolis – Public Works Department. February 2005. |
| Section 4 | Minnesota Stormwater Manual contributors. *Minnesota Stormwater Manual*. Accessed August 2017. |
| Section 4 | Minneapolis Public Works Surface Water & Sewers Division. *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0061018*. July 2015. |
| Section 5 | City of Minneapolis. *Annual Report on Minneapolis Combined Sewer Overflow Programs and Activities*. 2004 through 2016. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 829 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 830 -->
# Acknowledgements

The creation of a Water Resource Management Plan that comprehensively inventories, assesses, and sets policies for the future involves the contribution from many individuals and organizations. The Minneapolis Division of Surface Water and Sewers is the organizer and CDM Smith is the lead author of this document. The authors of this report would like to thank the following Surface Water and Sewers, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Department of Health, and Community Planning and Economic Development staff who contributed data, feedback, and overall knowledge of the water resources, sanitary system, and stormwater system.

Justin Balcome
Zelalem Biadglegne
Nicolas Cantarero
Lane Christianson
Rachael Crabb
Rachel Crews
Dennis Daly
Kevin Danen, P.E.

Lois Eberhart
Justin Flannery
Kartrina Kessler, P.E.
Kelly MacIntyre, P.E.
Kelly Moriarity, P.E.
Elizabeth Stout, P.E.
Karl Westermeyer

The authors would also like to thank the following organizations who contributed information and feedback:

Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
CDM Smith
Metropolitan Council
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission

<<FIGURE>>

*Credit: Jodi Polzin, P.E.*

Cover Photo Credit: City of Minneapolis

<!-- page 831 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 832 -->
# Appendix A – Cross-Reference of Plan Requirements

<!-- page 833 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 834 -->
### Cross-Reference Plan Requirements

| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **MN Rule 8410.0160** | | | | |
| Subpart 3.A | Executive summary of the local water plan highlights. | Executive Summary | All | ES-1 |
| Subpart 3.B | Water resource management-related agreements. | Section 2 | Water Resources Related Agreements | 2-33 |
| Subpart 3.C | Existing and proposed physical environment description. | Section 3 | Population, Land Area, Neighborhoods, and Parks | 3-1 |
| Subpart 3.C | Existing and proposed physical environment description. | Section 3 | Soils | 3-7 |
| Subpart 3.C | Existing and proposed physical environment description. | Section 3 | Climate | 3-8 |
| Subpart 3.C | Existing and proposed physical environment description. | Section 3 | Bedrock, Surficial Geology, and Topography | 3-10 |
| Subpart 3.C | Existing and proposed land use. | Section 3 | Land Use and Zoning | 3-12 |
| Subpart 3.C | Drainage area. | Section 4 | Stormwater Pipeshed Area Inventory | 4-24 |
| Subpart 3.C | Drainage area. | Appendix J | 2017 Stormwater Catchment Inventory | J-1 |
| Subpart 3.C | Drainage volume. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Subpart 3.C | Drainage rates. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Subpart 3.C | Define paths of stormwater runoff. | Section 4 | Figure 4.11 – City of Minneapolis Stormwater Runoff Pipeshed Areas | 4-26 |
| Subpart 3.D | Existing or potential water resource-related problems. | Appendix C | TMDL Status | C-1 |
| Subpart 3.D | Existing or potential water resource-related problems. | Appendix E | Monitoring and Assessment Report | E-1 |
| Subpart 3.E | Local implementation program including non-structural, programmatic, and structural solutions. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Subpart 3.E | Local implementation program including non-structural, programmatic, and structural solutions. | Section 6 | Operational Programs | 6-15 |
| Subpart 3.E | Prioritized implementation components. | Section 6 | Prioritization | 6-17 |
| Subpart 3.E.(1) | Areas and elevations for stormwater storage. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Subpart 3.E.(2) | Water quality protection methods. | Section 4 | Table 4.4 – Stormwater Drain System Infrastructure Inventory – City and MPRB Owned | 4-8 |
| Subpart 3.E.(2) | Water quality protection methods. | Section 5 | Water Resource Management Programs | 5-4 |
| Subpart 3.E.(3) | Responsibilities of local government in implementation. | Section 4 | Responsibilities for Infrastructure Management | 4-45 |
| Subpart 3.E.(3) | Responsibilities of local government in implementation. | Section 5 | Administrative Responsibilities | 5-25 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 835 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Subpart 3.E.(4) | Official controls relative to requirements of the implementation plan. | Section 5 | City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Ordinances | 5-1 |
| Subpart 3.E.(5) | Table to describe each component of the implementation program, includes schedule, cost, and funding source. | Section 6 | Table 6.1 – City of Minneapolis Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Operating Budget, 2015 through 2018 | 6-3 |
| Subpart 3.E.(6) | Table of capital improvement programs by year with schedule, estimated cost, and funding source. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Subpart 4 | Describes the process by which amendments to your surface water management plan can be made. | Section 1 | Water Resource Management Plan Management and Adoption | 1-14 |
| **Metropolitan Council Water Resources Policy Plan** | | | | |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | Adopted community sewered forecast of households and employment in 10-year increments to 2040, based on the Council’s 2040 forecasts with any subsequent negotiated modifications. | Appendix H | Sewage Flow Projections and Trunk Sewer Capacity Analysis by Interceptor Service Area | H-1 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | An electronic map or maps (GIS shape files or equivalent) that show the following information:<br>▪ Existing sanitary sewer system identifying lift stations, existing connection points to the metropolitan disposal system, and future connection points.<br>▪ Intercommunity connections and any proposed changes in government boundaries based on Orderly Annexation Agreements. | Section 4 | Figure 4.1 – City of Minneapolis Sanitary Sewers, Lift Stations, Intercommunity Connections | 4-4 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | Copy of an intercommunity service agreement entered into with an adjoining community after December 31, 2008. | Section 2 | Sanitary Sewer Agreements | 2-35 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | Description of community’s management program for subsurface sewage treatment systems to comply with MPCA 7080, and a copy of the community’s current subsurface sewage treatment system ordinance. | Section 1 | Private Sanitary Sewers and Treatment Systems | 1-10 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | A table or tables that contain capacity and design flows for existing trunk sewers and lift stations. | Appendix F | City of Minneapolis Sanitary Lift Station Inventory | F-1 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | Assignment of 2040 growth forecasts by Metropolitan interceptor facility. In the absence of this information, the Council will make its own assignments for the purpose of system capacity needs determination. | Appendix H | City of Minneapolis Sewage Flow Projections and Trunk Sewer Capacity Analysis by Interceptor Service Area | H-1 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 836 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :--- | :---: |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | Proposed time schedule for the construction of new trunk sewer systems that require connections to the Metropolitan Council Disposal System. | N/A | N/A – no new trunk sewers proposed within the City of Minneapolis | - |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | Accompanying information on the type and capacity of the treatment facilities, whether municipally or privately owned, as well as copies of their appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Disposal System (SDS) permit. | Section 1 | Private Sanitary Sewers and Treatment Systems | 1-10 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | City goals, policies, and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I) in local municipal and private sewer systems. | Section 4 | Inflow/Infiltration Flows | 4-20 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | City goals, policies, and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I) in local municipal and private sewer systems, including:<ul><li>Requirements and standards for minimizing I/I and for the disconnection of sump pump and foundation drain connections to the sanitary sewer system. To be included are copies of ordinance prohibiting the discharge of foundation drains and/or roof leaders to the sanitary disposal system, as well as copies of ordinance requiring the disconnection of existing foundation drains, sump pumps, and roof leaders from the sanitary disposal system.</li></ul> | Section 5 | Inflow/Infiltration Compliance, Private Properties | 5-7 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | City goals, policies, and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I) in local municipal and private sewer systems, including:<ul><li>Information on the extent, source, and significance of existing I/I problems along with an analysis of costs for remediation.</li></ul> | Section 4 | Inflow/Infiltration Flows | 4-20 |
| Appendix C-1 Wastewater | City goals, policies, and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I) in local municipal and private sewer systems, including:<ul><li>Implementation plan including program strategy, priorities, scheduling, and financing mechanisms for eliminating and preventing excessive I/I from entering the system.</li></ul> | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program: Inflow/Infiltration Mitigation Program | 6-5 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 837 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 1. An executive summary that summarizes the highlights of the local water plan. | Executive Summary | All | ES-1 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 2. A summary of the appropriate water resource management-related agreements that have been entered into by the local community. | Section 2 | Water Resources Related Agreements | 2-33 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 3. A description of the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. Data may be incorporated by reference for other required elements of this section as allowed by the WMO. | Section 3 | Population, Land Area, Neighborhoods, and Parks | 3-1 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 3. A description of the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. Data may be incorporated by reference for other required elements of this section as allowed by the WMO. | Section 3 | Soils | 3-7 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 3. A description of the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. Data may be incorporated by reference for other required elements of this section as allowed by the WMO. | Section 3 | Climate | 3-8 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 3. A description of the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. Data may be incorporated by reference for other required elements of this section as allowed by the WMO. | Section 3 | Bedrock, Surficial Geology, and Topography | 3-10 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 3. A description of the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. Data may be incorporated by reference for other required elements of this section as allowed by the WMO. | Section 3 | Land Use and Zoning | 3-12 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The following must be defined in the plan:<br>▪ Drainage areas. | Section 4 | Table 4.9 – City of Minneapolis Stormwater Pipesheds | 4-25 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The following must be defined in the plan:<br>▪ Volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff (runoff rates are recommended for a 24-hour precipitation event with a return frequency of 1 or 2 years. Communities with known flooding issues may want to require rate control for storms with other return frequencies, such as 10-year, 25-year, or 100-year events. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 838 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 4. An assessment of existing or potential water resource-related problems. At a minimum, the plan should include:<br>▪ A prioritized assessment of the problems related to water quality and quantity in the community. | Section 3 | Minneapolis Waterbodies (see specific waterbody for information) | 3-12 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 4. An assessment of existing or potential water resource-related problems. At a minimum, the plan should include:<br>▪ A list of any impaired waters within their jurisdiction as shown on the current Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 303d Impaired Waters List. | Appendix C | City of Minneapolis TMDL Status | C-1 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 4. An assessment of existing or potential water resource-related problems. At a minimum, the plan should include:<br>▪ If a Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) or TMDL study has been completed for the community, the community should include implementation strategies, including funding mechanisms, that will allow the community to carry out the recommendations and requirements from the WRAPS or TMDL specific to that community. | Section 3 | TMDL Mitigation Plans Required Actions | 3-93 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 5. A local implementation program/plan that includes prioritized non-structural, programmatic, and structural solutions to priority problems identified as part of the assessment completed for number 4, above. Local official controls must be enacted within six months of the approval of the local water plan. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | ▪ 5. A local implementation program/plan that includes prioritized non-structural, programmatic, and structural solutions to priority problems identified as part of the assessment completed for number 4, above. Local official controls must be enacted within six months of the approval of the local water plan. The program/plan must:<br>▪ Include areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards or official controls established in the WMO plan(s). | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 5. A local implementation program/plan that includes prioritized non-structural, programmatic, and structural solutions to priority problems identified as part of the | Section 5 | Site Plan Review and Capital Project Task Force | 5-15 |

<!-- page 839 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | assessment completed for number 4, above. Local official controls must be enacted within six months of the approval of the local water plan. The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Define water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards or official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include:<ul><li>Information on the types of best management practices (BMP) to be used to improve stormwater quality and quantity. (A five-year establishment period is recommended for native plantings and bioengineering practices.)</li><li>The maintenance schedule for the BMP. (The maintenance schedule in plans submitted by regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) communities must be consistent with BMP inspection and maintenance requirements of the MS4 permit.)</li></ul></li></ul> | | | |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Clearly define the responsibilities of the community from that of the MWO(s) for carrying out the implementation components.</li></ul> | Section 5 | Watershed Organization Requirements | 5-18 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Describe official controls and any changes to official controls.</li></ul> | Section 5 | Change That Would Be Adequate to Meet Performance Standards or Official Controls | 5-27 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Describe official controls and any changes to official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include:<ul><li>Stormwater permit requirements and other applicable state requirements.</li></ul></li></ul> | Section 2 | NPDES Permits – MPCA | 2-6 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Describe official controls and any changes to official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include:<ul><li>An erosion and sediment control ordinance consistent with NPDES Construction.</li></ul></li></ul> | Section 5 | Erosion and Sediment Control | 5-5 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 840 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Describe official controls and any changes to official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include:<ul><li>Identify ways to control runoff rates so that land-altering activities do not increase peak stormwater flow from the site for a 24-hour precipitation event with a return frequency of 1 or 2 years. Communities with known flooding issues may want to require rate control for storms with other return frequencies (10-year, 25-year, 100-year).</li></ul></li></ul> | Section 5 | Stormwater Management Standards for Development and Redevelopment/Post-Construction Stormwater Management | 5-16 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Describe official controls and any changes to official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include:<ul><li>Consider use of NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8 (Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the United States) to calculate precipitation amounts and stormwater runoff rates. (MPCA uses NOAA Atlas 14 in calculations to determine whether the 1-inch standard has been met.)</li></ul></li></ul> | Section 3 | Atlas 14 | 3-8 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Describe official controls and any changes to official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include:<ul><li>Consider adoption of the MPCA Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) performance goals and flexible treatment options.</li></ul></li></ul> | Section 5 | Minimal Impact Design Standards Flexible Treatment Options | 5-20 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Describe official controls and any changes to official controls. At a minimum, the plan should include:<ul><li>For communities that do not adopt MIDS, the plan should use stormwater practices that promote I/I and decrease impervious areas, such as better site design and integrated stormwater management, where practical. (Communities must meet requirements of the MS4 permit if they are regulated. MS4 permit puts preference on green infrastructure, including infiltration. Construction permit will govern this either</li></ul></li></ul> | Section 5 | Stormwater Management Standards for Development and Redevelopment/Post-Construction Stormwater Management | 5-16 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 841 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | way, and requires use of green infrastructure, when possible). | | | |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Include a table that briefly describes each component of the implementation program and clearly details the schedule, estimated cost, and funding sources for each component.</li></ul> | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | The program/plan must:<br><ul><li>Include a table for a capital improvement program that sets forth, by year, details of each contemplated capital improvement that includes the schedule, estimated cost, and funding source.</li></ul> | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Appendix C-2 Surface Water | 6. A section titled "Amendments to Plan" that establishes the process by which amendments may be made. | Section 1 | Water Resource Management Plan Management and Adoption | 1-14 |
| **Mississippi Watershed Management Organization** | | | | |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #1 | Executive Summary that summarizes the highlights of the local water plan. Highlights should include local water plan goals, policies, and implementation programs that address problems identified in the MWMO’s Plan (Focus Statements in Section 2.7); corrective actions that affect these MWMO concerns; and, any actions requiring MWMO’s collaboration. | Executive Summary | All | ES-1 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Water quality | Section 3 | Minneapolis Waterbodies (see specific waterbody for information) | 3-14 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Water rate and volume. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Monitoring and data. | Section 3 | City-Wide Water Quality Monitoring and Other Efforts | 3-83 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Monitoring and data. | Appendix E | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | E-1 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Communications outreach. | Section 5 | Public Education, Participation, and Involvement | 5-11 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 842 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Ecosystem health. | Section 3 | Unique Features/Fish and Wildlife/Scenic Areas/Natural Resources/Key Conservation Areas/Ecological Health | 3-83 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Regulations and enforcement. | Section 5 | Water Resource Management Programs | 5-4 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Urban stormwater management. | Section 4 | Figure 4.5 – Structural Stormwater Management Practices | 4-10 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Emergency preparedness and response. | Section 5 | Emergency Preparedness | 5-5 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Financial responsibility and strategies. | Section 6 | Water Resource Management Financing | 6-1 |
| Section 2.7. Focus Area | Emerging issues. | Section 3 | Unique Features/Fish and Wildlife Habitats/Scenic Areas/Natural Resources/Key Conservation Areas/Ecological Health | 3-83 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #2 | Provide a citation and brief description of water resource management-related agreements that have been entered into by the community. | Section 2 | Water Resources Related Agreements | 2-33 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #3 | Describe the city’s current water resource and ecosystem health-related problems and any problems that are expected to worsen or emerge over the next 10 years given the projected change in the city’s growth and land use. | Section 3 | Minneapolis Waterbodies (see specific waterbody for information) | 3-14 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #3 | Describe the city’s current water resource and ecosystem health-related problems and any problems that are expected to worsen or emerge over the next 10 years given the projected change in the city’s growth and land use. | Appendix E | Monitoring and Assessments Reports | E-1 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #4 | As part of the Local Water Plan and City Comprehensive Plan development process, LGUs should carefully examine how water resources and ecosystem management and protection can be integrated into land use planning and development. | Section 3 | Land Use and Zoning | 3-12 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 843 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #4 | Describe how decisions on land use, regional water, and natural resource needs are being reconciled. | Section 6 | Project and Program Implementation | 6-16 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #4 | Address the order of authority. | Section 1 | Minneapolis Water Resource Management Plan | 1-11 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #4 | Note modifications to ordinance or best practices that could improve greening, habitat protection, and stormwater reuse opportunities. | Section 5 | Assessment of Minneapolis Water Resource Programs | 5-26 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #4 | Identify a future amendment process and schedule for reassessing ordinances. | Section 5 | Change That Would Be Adequate to Meet Performance Standards or Controls | 5-27 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #4 | Describe efforts to integrate Safe Drinking Water Act and Wellhead Protection plans into Zoning Code. | Section 3 | Source Water Protection – Minneapolis | 3-89 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #4 | Describe efforts to integrate Safe Drinking Water Act and Wellhead Protection plans into Zoning Code. | Section 3 | Source Water Protection – Neighboring Municipalities | 3-92 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Include a local implementation program that covers the term of the local water plan. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Population, Land Area, Neighborhoods, and Parks | 3-1 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Soils | 3-7 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Climate | 3-8 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 844 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Bedrock, Surficial Geology, and Topography | 3-10 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Land Use and Zoning | 3-12 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Include a stormwater system map that shows ponds, lakes, and wetlands, structural controls, pipes, and pipe sizes, and other conveyances and outfalls. | Section 4 | Figure 4.4 – Minneapolis Stormwater Drain System | 4-9 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Include a stormwater system amp that shows ponds, lakes, and wetlands, structural controls, pipes, and pipe sizes, and other conveyances and outfalls. | Section 4 | Figure 4.5 –Structural Stormwater Management Practices | 4-10 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Include a table that describes each component of the implementation program. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Include a table that describes each component of the implementation program. | Section 6 | Operational Programs | 6-15 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Include a table for capital improvement program. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Provide a schedule and annual process for assessing the need for improvements. | Section 6 | Project and Program Implementation | 6-16 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Define the responsibilities of the local government unit from that of the MWMO and other entities. | Section 5 | Watershed Organization Requirements | 5-18 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 845 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #6 | Explain interdepartmental coordination of water and natural resource issues in the city. | Section 4 | Responsibilities for Infrastructure Management | 4-45 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Identify a communication process. | Section 5 | Administrative Responsibilities | 5-25 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #5 | Provide a description of the interdepartmental city process that facilitates the approval and installation of innovative stormwater management facilities. | Section 5 | Site Plan Review and Capital Project Task Forces | 5-15 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #7 | Provide a summary of the member organization's SWPPP and conformance with NPDES permit. | Section 1 | Relationship to Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program | 1-11 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #7 | Inspection and maintenance plans. | Section 5 | Ongoing Stormwater Management Compliance | 5-20 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #7 | Street sweeping. | Section 4 | Street Maintenance | 4-35 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #7 | Spill response and containment plans. | Section 5 | Spill Response | 5-5 |
| Table 4. Water, Natural Resources, and Land Use, #7 | Responsibilities. | Section 5 | Administrative Responsibilities | 5-25 |
| Table 4. MWMO Standards and Agency Regulations | Wetland alternation permitting process. | Section 5 | Wetland Conservation Act | 5-19 |
| Table 4. MWMO Standards and Agency Regulations | Permitting, site review, and enforcement ordinances. | Section 5 | Stormwater Management Standards for Development and Redevelopment/Post-Construction Stormwater Management | 5-16 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 846 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Table 4. MWMO Standards and Agency Regulations | County groundwater plan compliance. | N/A | N/A – Hennepin County does not have an adopted groundwater management plan. | - |
| Table 4. MWMO Standards and Agency Regulations | Lakes on Metropolitan Council priority lake list. | Section 3 | Minneapolis Waterbodies (see specific waterbody for information) | 3-14 |
| Table 4. MWMO Standards and Agency Regulations | Lakes of MPCA’s list of impaired waters. | Appendix C | City of Minneapolis TMDL Status | C-1 |
| Table 4. MWMO Standards and Agency Regulations | TMDL compliance requirement summaries. | Section 3 | TMDL Mitigation Plans Required Actions | 3-93 |
| Table 4. MWMO Standards and Agency Regulations | TMDL activities completed to-date summaries. | Section 3 | TMDL Mitigation Plans Required Actions | 3-93 |
| Table 4. Surface Water Appropriations | Identify city administration of small watercourse appropriations. | Section 5 | Appropriations from Small Watercourses | 5-23 |
| Table 4. Evaluation | Identify measurements to track compliance with local water plan implementation. | Section 1 | Annual Reports | 1-15 |
| **Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission** | | | | |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Population, Land Area, Neighborhoods, and Parks | 3-1 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Soils | 3-7 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Climate | 3-8 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Bedrock, Surficial Geology, and Topography | 3-10 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update existing and proposed physical environment and land use. | Section 3 | Land Use and Zoning | 3-12 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update existing hydrology. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update proposed hydrology. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 847 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Section 4.4.1 | Subwatershed figure and shapefiles. | Section 3 | Figure 3.6 – City of Minneapolis Waterbodies Drainage Areas | 3-15 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Storm drainage system figure and shapefiles. | Section 4 | Figure 4.11 – City of Minneapolis Stormwater Runoff Pipeshed Areas | 4-26 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Storm drainage system figure and shapefiles. | Appendix J | 2017 Stormwater Catchment Inventory | J-1 |
| Section 4.4.1 | BMP figure and shapefiles. | Section 4 | Figure 4.5 – Structural Stormwater Management Practices | 4-10 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Implementation of goals, policies, rules, and standards at local level. | Section 2 | Minneapolis Goals and Policies | 2-18 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Demonstrate actions to achieve load reductions and other requirements/goals of TMDL implementation plans. | Section 3 | TMDL Mitigation Plans Required Actions | 3-93 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Identify known upcoming projects related to TMDL implementation. | Section 3 | TMDL Mitigation Plans Required Actions | 3-93 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Explain implementation of City Review project review requirements. | Section 5 | Site Plan Review and Capital Project Task Force | 5-16 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update existing and potential water resource related problems. | Section 3 | Minneapolis Waterbodies (see specific waterbody for information) | 3-14 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Update existing and potential water resource related problems. | Appendix C | City of Minneapolis TMDL Status | C-1 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Identify non-structural, programmatic, and structural solutions (including those program elements detailed in Rule 8410). | Section 5 | Water Resource Management Programs | 5-4 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Estimated cost of implementation. | Section 6 | Expenditures | 6-3 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Analysis of City's ability to finance recommended actions. | Section 6 | Revenue | 6-1 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Description of implementation program. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Description of adoption or amendment of official controls and local policies. | Section 6 | Project and Program Implementation | 6-16 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Programs necessary to implement rules and standards. | Section 5 | Water Resource Management Programs | 5-4 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Policies necessary to implement rules and standards. | Section 2 | Minneapolis Goals and Policies | 2-18 |
| Section 4.4.1 | Capital Improvement Plan. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| | **Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission** | | | |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 848 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Assess problems identified by the BCWMC that affect the City. | Section 3 | Bassett Creek | 3-11 |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Assess problems identified by the BCWMC that affect the City. | Section 3 | Wirth Lake | 3-78 |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Assess problems identified by the BCWMC that affect the City. | Section 3 | Watershed Organization Required Actions | 3-97 |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Propose corrective actions for problems identified by the BCWMC that affect the City; consider collaborative role with BCWMC (no specific problems identified in BCWMC Plan). | Section 3 | Table 3.52 – TMDL Implementation Plan Requirements and Activities for the City of Minneapolis | 3-94 |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Propose corrective actions for problems identified by the BCWMC that affect the City; consider collaborative role with BCWMC (no specific problems identified in BCWMC Plan). | Section 4 | BCWMC Flood Control Structures | 4-34 |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Policies and goals must be consistent with the BCWMC Plan. | Section 2 | Minneapolis Goals and Policies | 2-18 |
| Section 4.2.1 Water Quality Policies | 3. Member cities to classify waterbodies according to BCWMC classification system. | Section 3 | Watershed Organization Required Actions | 3-97 |
| Section 4.2.1 Water Quality Policies | 5. Work with BCWMC to implement identified improvement projects. | Section 3 | Watershed Organization Required Actions | 3-97 |
| Section 4.2.1 Water Quality Policies | 15. Member cities shall not allow drainage of sanitary sewage or non-permitted industrial wastes onto land or watercourse discharging to Bassett Creek. | Section 5 | Table 5.1 – City of Minneapolis Code of Ordinances | 5-1 |
| Section 4.2.1 Water Quality Policies | 17. Member cities encouraged to implement practices to minimize chloride loading. | Section 4 | Winter Street Maintenance Practices | 4-35 |
| Section 4.2.2 Flooding and Rate Control Policies | 24. Member cities are responsible for routing maintenance and report of BCWMC flood control structures. | Section 4 | BCWMC Flood Control Structures | 4-34 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 849 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Section 4.2.2 Flooding and Rate Control Policies | 29. Member cities must implement BCWMC flood level requirements for new and redeveloped structures (including 2-foot separation between building and 100-year elevation). | Section 5 | Zoning Code and Land Use | 5-23 |
| Section 4.2.2 Flooding and Rate Control Policies | 30. Member cities must require rate control in conformance with Flood Control Project System design. | Section 5 | Regulatory Controls for BCWMC Flood Control Projects | 5-27 |
| Section 4.2.2 Flooding and Rate Control Policies | 37. Member cities are encouraged to remove streets, utilities, and structures that are below current 100-year floodplain as development or redevelopment allows. | Section 5 | Zoning Code and Land Use | 5-23 |
| Section 4.2.2 Flooding and Rate Control Policies | 39. Member cities must maintain ordinances that are consistent with BCWMC floodplain standards. Ordinances must be submitted to BCWMC for review. | Section 5 | Zoning Code and Land Use | 5-23 |
| Section 4.2.3 Groundwater Management Policies | 49. Member cities are encouraged to educate residents regarding the importance of implementing BMPs to protect groundwater quality and quantity. | Section 5 | Public Education, Participation, and Involvement | 5-11 |
| Section 4.2.3 Groundwater Management Policies | 50. Member cities shall share groundwater elevation data, where available, with the BCWMC. | Section 3 | Groundwater | 3-82 |
| Section 4.2.4 Erosion and Sediment Control Policies | 51. Member cities shall continue managing erosion and sediment control permitting programs and ordinances. | Section 5 | Erosion and Sediment Control | 5-5 |
| Section 4.2.4 Erosion and Sediment Control Policies | 54. Member cities shall perform regular erosion and sediment control inspections for projects triggering BCWMC review. Member cities will provide an annual report to BCWMC on compliance with BCWMC standards (as part of MS4 reporting requirements). | Section 5 | Erosion and Sediment Control | 5-5 |
| Section 4.2.4 Erosion and Sediment Control Policies | 55. Local water management plans required to describe existing and proposed ordinances, permits, and procedures addressing erosion and sediment control. | Section 5 | Table 5.1 – City of Minneapolis Code of Ordinances | 5-1 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 850 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Section 4.2.5 Stream Restoration and Protection Policies | 62. Member cities are responsible for funding maintenance and repairs of aesthetic improvements. | N/A | N/A – Cost share of capital improvement projects is determined for each specific project | - |
| Section 4.2.5 Stream Restoration and Protection Policies | 64. Member cities shall maintain and enforce BCWMC buffer requirements along priority streams. | Section 5 | Wetland Conservation Act | 5-19 |
| Section 4.2.6 Wetland Management Policies | 65. Member cities are required to inventory, classify, and determine the functions and values of wetlands, maintain a database, and are encouraged to complete comprehensive wetland management plans. | Section 3 | Wetland Inventories | 3-79 |
| Section 4.2.6 Wetland Management Policies | 66. Member cities are required to develop and implement wetland protection ordinances. | Section 5 | Wetland Conservation Act | 5-19 |
| Section 4.2.6 Wetland Management Policies | 68. Member cities shall maintain and enforce BCWMC buffer requirements for projects containing more than one acre of new or redeveloped impervious area. | Section 5 | Watershed Organization Requirements | 5-18 |
| Section 4.2.6 Wetland Management Policies | 69. Member cities are required to manage wetlands in accordance with the WCA. | Section 5 | Wetland Conservation Act | 5-19 |
| Section 4.2.6 Wetland Management Policies | 72. Member cities are required to annually inspect wetlands classified as “Preserve.” | N/A | N/A – There are no wetlands within Minneapolis municipal boundaries that are designated classified by BCWMC as “Preserve” | - |
| Section 4.2.6 Wetland Management Policies | 73. Member cities are encouraged to pursue wetland restoration projects. | Section 3 | Wetland Inventories | 3-79 |
| Section 4.2.6 Wetland Management Policies | 74. Member cities are encouraged to participate in wetland monitoring programs such as WHEP. | Section 3 | Wetland Health Evaluation Project | 3-88 |
| Section 4.2.8 Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management Policies | 80. Member cities are responsible for shoreland regulation. | Section 5 | Zoning Code and Land Use | 5-23 |
| Section 4.2.8 Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management Policies | 82. Member cities are encouraged to develop and maintain water-related recreation features. | N/A | N/A – Water recreation is the responsibility of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board | - |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 851 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Section 4.2.8 Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management Policies | 85. Member cities shall consider opportunities to maintain, enhance, or provide new open spaces and/or habitat as part of water resource projects. | N/A | N/A – Features of capital improvement projects is determined for each specific project | - |
| Section 4.2.8 Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management Policies | 89. Member cities shall adopt State buffer and/or shoreland management requirements for public waters. | Section 2 | Buffer Law | 2-37 |
| Section 4.2.10 Administration Policies | 113. Member cities must inform BCWMC regarding updates to city ordinance or comprehensive plans that affect stormwater management. | Section 5 | Watershed Organization Requirements | 5-18 |
| Section 4.2.10 Administration Policies | 119. Member cities shall appoint a technical advisor to the BCWMC TAC. | Section 3 | N/A | - |
| Section 4.2.10 Administration Policies | 120. Member cities shall inform developer and other project applicants regarding BCWMC requirements. | Section 5 | Watershed Organization Requirements | 5-18 |
| Section 4.2.10 Administration Policies | 121. Member cities shall permit only those projects that conform to the policies and standards of the BCWMC. | Section 5 | Watershed Organization Requirements | 5-18 |
| Section 4.2.10 Administration Policies | 122. Member cities are required to acquire and maintain easements, right-of-way, or interest in land for BCWMC ordered CIP projects. | Section 5 | Watershed Organization Requirements | 5-18 |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Describe the maintenance of the stormwater system to prevent flooding and water quality problems. | Section 4 | Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance | 4-30 |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Assess the need for periodic maintenance of public works, facilities, and natural conveyance systems under the City's jurisdiction. | Section 4 | Baseline Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Drain Condition Assessments | 4-38 |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Assess the need to establish a waterbody management classification system to provide for water quality and quantity management. Correlate selected system with BCWMC classification system. | Section 3 | Watershed Organization Required Actions | 3-97 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 852 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Section 5.3.1.1 | Identify official controls and programs (ordinances, management plans) to enforce policies of the BCWMC. Implement changes to system within 2 years of BCWMC plan adoption. | Section 3 | Watershed Organization Required Actions | 3-97 |
| **Minnehaha Creek Watershed District** | | | | |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Identify regional data systems maintained by the District and describe their application to LGU activity. | Appendix E | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | E-1 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Describe hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) model. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Provide waterbody flood elevations derived from Atlas 14 precipitation data. | Section 4 | Stormwater Drain Hydraulic Standards | 4-27 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Describe functional assessment of wetlands. | Section 3 | Wetland Inventories | 3-79 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Provide data on biological and physical condition of District streams. | Section 3 | Minnehaha Creek | 3-33 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Provide hydrologic data on water quality, water quantity, and ecological integrity conditions and trends for District resources. | Appendix E | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | E-1 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | A summary of water resource management-related agreements, including joint powers agreements, into which the LGU has entered with watershed management organizations, adjoining LGU’s, private parties, or others. | Section 2 | Water Resources Related Agreements | 2-33 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Maps of current land use and land use at the LGU planning horizon. | Section 3 | Figure 3.4 – City of Minneapolis Land Use | 3-13 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Maps of drainage areas under current and future planned land use with paths, rates, and volumes of stormwater runoff. | Section 4 | Figure 4.11 – City of Minneapolis Stormwater Runoff Pipeshed Areas | 4-26 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Stormwater conveyance map meeting standards of the current MS4 general permit and indicating an outfall or a connection at the LGU boundary. | Section 4 | Figure 4.4 – Minneapolis Stormwater Drain System | 4-9 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | An inventory of public and private stormwater management facilities including the location, facility type, and party responsible for maintenance. | Section 4 | Figure 4.5 – Structural Stormwater Management Practices | 4-10 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 853 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | A listing and summary of existing or potential water resource-related problems wholly or partly within LGU corporate limits. A problem assessment consistent with Minnesota Rules 8410.0045, subpart 7[^p853-1], is to be completed for each. This includes, but is not limited to:<br>▪ Areas of present or potential future local flooding.<br>▪ Landlocked areas.<br>▪ Regional storage needs. | Section 3 | Minneapolis Waterbodies (see specific waterbody for information) | 3-14 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Executive summary of the local plan highlights. | Executive Summary | All | ES-1 |
| Appendix A. Data & Information | Statement of the process to amend the local plan. | Section 1 | Amendment Procedures | 1-15 |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping | Describe land, facilities, and operations. | N/A | N/A – Information contained in *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit, revised July 22, 2015* | - |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Land | Inventory real property owned by the LGU, including classification of properties in useful terms such as developed, land suited for development/redevelopment, right-of-way, dedicated outlets, park and recreation land, non-developable, or conservation. | N/A | N/A – Information contained in *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit, revised July 22, 2015* | - |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Land | Indicate locations of facilities and operations identified in the LGU SWPPP. | N/A | N/A – Information contained in *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit, revised July 22, 2015* | - |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Land | Discuss water resource issues and opportunities associated with its properties. | N/A | N/A – Information contained in *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit, revised July 22, 2015* | - |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Land | Identify potential opportunities to coordinate with the District or other partners. | Section 5 | Coordination with Other Government Agencies – Water Resource Management Programs | 5-26 |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Facilities and Operations | Inventory facilities that it owns or operates and municipal operations that may contribute pollutants to groundwater or surface waters as required in NPDES MS4 stormwater permit. | N/A | N/A – Information contained in *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit, revised July 22, 2015* | - |

<!-- page 854 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Facilities and Operations | Describe best management practices that it commits to implement to address potential water resource impacts as required in NPDES MS4 stormwater permit. | N/A | N/A – Information contained in *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit*, revised July 22, 2015 | - |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Facilities and Operations | Discuss issues or opportunities related to particular facilities or operations where the District’s technical assistance, LGU/District cooperation, shared facilities/service with other LGUs or other forms of collaboration with other interested parties may results in water resource benefits. | N/A | N/A – To be contained in Memorandum of Understanding between Minneapolis and MCWD | - |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Stormwater Management Facilities | Map locating all stormwater best management practices within the LGU’s stormwater conveyance system. | Section 4 | Figure 4.4 – Minneapolis Stormwater Drain System | 4-9 |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Stormwater Management Facilities | Inventory of all stormwater management basins within its political boundaries, whether owned by the LGU or otherwise. | Section 4 | Figure 4.5 – Structural Stormwater Management Practices | 4-10 |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Stormwater Management Facilities | For each basin and other stormwater management practice contained in the map and inventory, the local plan is to identify the party responsible to maintain the practice; state whether the practice is in maintained condition. | N/A | N/A – Information contained in *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit*, revised July 22, 2015 | - |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Stormwater Management Facilities | For practices that the LGU is responsible to maintain, the date of next maintenance, if maintenance is programmed. | N/A | N/A – Information contained in *Minneapolis Stormwater Management Program, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I Permit*, revised July 22, 2015 | - |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Stormwater | Describe its approach to maintenance of stormwater management practices constructed in conjunction with private development. This includes: | Section 5 | Ongoing Stormwater Management Compliance | 5-20 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 855 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Management Facilities | A. Whether the LGU assumes maintenance responsibility and, if so, under what circumstances. <br> B. The LGU's program to inspect practices and secure maintenance by private parties. <br> C. The means by which the LGU funds its maintenance and inspection activities. <br> D. Other means of funding that are within its legal authority but that it does not presently use. | | | |
| Appendix A. LGU Housekeeping: Stormwater Management Facilities | Discuss the scope of its knowledge on deferred maintenance of public and private stormwater management practices within its boundaries. | Section 5 | Ongoing Stormwater Management Compliance | 5-20 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Identify those areas within or adjacent to the LGU that are designated in its local comprehensive land use plan as potential development or redevelopment within comprehensive plan planning horizon. This includes planned rezoning, land assembly, and infrastructure extension or expansion. | N/A | N/A – Information to be contained in 2018 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan | - |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | List and describe completed or programmed small area plans and similar planning activities with respect to defined-area redevelopment. | N/A | N/A – Information to be contained in 2018 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan | - |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Describe the procedures by which the LGU plans, programs, and implements transportation infrastructure. | N/A | N/A – Information to be contained in 2018 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan | - |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Describe the procedures by which the LGU plans, programs, and implements sewer and water infrastructure. | Section 6 | Project and Program Implementation | 6-16 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Describe the procedures by which the LGU plans, programs, and implements park and recreation land acquisition and management. | N/A | N/A – Responsibility of Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board | - |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Describe the procedures by which the LGU plans, programs, and implements conservation land acquisition and management. | N/A | N/A – Minneapolis is fully developed and has minimal land available for conservation acquisition | - |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Date of the most recent approved capital implementation or land acquisition and management program, the frequency of program updating, and internal procedures to | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 856 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | develop and approve the implementation program and to implement specific actions, and how programming and implementation is coordinated with other LGU activities. | | | |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Provide links to small area/redevelopment plans. | N/A | N/A – Information to be contained in 2018 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan | - |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Provide links to capital implementation programs. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Planning | Provide links to acquisition and management plans. | N/A | N/A – Minneapolis is fully developed and has minimal land available for conservation acquisition | - |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Review zoning and subdivision codes and other measures that have been adopted or are being considered and to indicate any role the District might plan in evaluating or implementing any such measures. | Section 5 | Table 5.1 – City of Minneapolis Code of Ordinances and Table 5.2 – Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Code of Ordinances | 5-1 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Describe whether the LGU development review process incorporates voluntary or obligatory low-impact site design review. If so, describe the process and whether it will facilitate District participation. | Section 5 | Site Plan Review and Capital Project Task Force | 5-15 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Describe whether the LGU requires stormwater management practices, wetlands, or wetland buffers be platted on outlets. If not, describe the obstacles for doing so. | Section 5 | Stormwater Management Standards for Development and Redevelopment/Post-Construction Stormwater Management | 5-16 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Explain the LGU’s maintenance responsibility policy and practice within residential, industrial, or other subdivision and how these are funded. | Section 5 | Ongoing Stormwater Management Compliance | 5-20 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Describe wellhead protection plan, policies, and implementation. Describe established policies as to where and when infiltration will not be required or permitted as a stormwater management practice. | Section 5 | Minimal Impact Design Standards Flexible Treatment Options | 5-20 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Describe provisions of official controls or LGU practices that make applicants aware of District permitting requirements. | Section 5 | Watershed Organization Requirements | 5-18 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Identify other regulatory mandates concerning water resources under which it operates. Describe its legal role and responsibility, and compliance status. | Section 2 | Regulatory Agencies, Requirements, Goals, and Programs | 2-1 |

<!-- page 857 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Identify other roles not legally mandated but that the LGU elects to perform. May by in tabular form. | Section 5 | Water Resource Management Programs | 5-4 |
| Appendix A. Land Use: Development Regulation | Identify any District assistance or coordination that would benefit its implementation of any particular program, specifically: <ul><li>NPDES MS4 program.</li><li>TMDL program.</li><li>Anti-degradation requirements.</li><li>Safe Drinking Water Act/State wellhead protection program.</li><li>National Flood Insurance Program.</li><li>State floodplain management law.</li><li>State shoreland management law.</li><li>Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.</li></ul> | N/A | N/A – To be contained in Memorandum of Understanding between Minneapolis and MCWD | - |
| Appendix A. Implementation Program | Describe non-structural, programmatic, and structural solutions to water resources problems. | Section 5 | Water Resource Management Programs | 5-4 |
| Appendix A. Implementation Program | Present these implementation elements in a table that briefly describes each element, details the schedule, estimated cost and funding sources for the element, and annual budget totals. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Appendix A. Implementation Program | Present these implementation elements in a table that briefly describes each element, details the schedule, estimated cost and funding sources for the element, and annual budget totals. | Section 6 | Operational Programs | 6-15 |
| Appendix A. Implementation Program | Break out within this table a capital improvement program that sets forth, by year, details of each contemplated capital improvement including schedule, estimated cost, and funding source. | Section 6 | Capital Improvement Program | 6-4 |
| Appendix A. Implementation Program | Prioritize implementation elements consistent with the principles of Minnesota Rule 8410.0045, subpart 1.A and District priorities as described in the WMP and communicated to the LGU. | Section 6 | Prioritization | 6-17 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 858 -->
| Citation | Requirement | WRMP Section | WRMP Sub-Section(s) | WRMP Page # |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :--- | :---: |
| Appendix A. Implementation Program | Implementation program as in its judgment will meet these legal requirements. | Section 6 | Project and Program Implementation | 6-16 |
| Appendix A. LGU/District Coordination Plan | Describe the elements of a coordination plan that the LGU and District can implement at a staff level. The plan should address:<br><ul><li>An annual meeting to review water resource plan implementation.</li><li>Mutual transmittal of annual NPDES MS4 report.</li><li>How the District can receive notice of and consult with the LGU on its land use, infrastructure, park and recreation, and capital improvement efforts.</li><li>LGU notices to the District.</li><li>District notices to the LGU.</li><li>District notices of significant events related to development/redevelopment.</li><li>Regulatory coordination.</li><li>Public communication and education partnerships or coordination.</li></ul>LGU staff to be made aware of coordination plans. | N/A | N/A – To be contained in Memorandum of Understanding between Minneapolis and MCWD | - |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 859 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 860 -->
# Appendix B – NPDES Integrated Permit

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 861 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 862 -->
<<FIGURE>>

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

520 Lafayette Road North | St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 | 651-296-6300

800-657-3864 | Use your preferred relay service | info.pca@state.mn.us | Equal Opportunity Employer

February 16, 2018

The Honorable Jacob Frey
Mayor, City of Minneapolis
350 South 5th Street, Room 331
Minneapolis, MN 55415

RE: Final Reissued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System
(NPDES/SDS) Permit No. MN0061018
City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota

Dear Mayor Frey:

Enclosed is the final permit for the City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has prepared this permit in compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.), 40 CFR pts. 122, 123, and 124, as amended; Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as amended; and Minn. R. ch. 7001.

If you have any questions regarding any of the terms and conditions of the final permit, please contact Cole Landgraf at 651-757-2880 or by email at cole.landgraf@state.mn.us.

Sincerely,

**Duane Duncanson**

*This document has been electronically signed.*

Duane Duncanson
Supervisor, Municipal Stormwater Unit
Stormwater Section
Municipal Division

CL:ml

Enclosure: Final Permit

cc: Lois Eberhart, City of Minneapolis

<!-- page 863 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS)**

**MN0061018**

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Permittee:** | City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, herein after the “Permittee” |
| **Facility name:** | Minneapolis Municipal Storm Water |
| **Receiving water:** | Waterbodies within and adjacent to the City of Minneapolis |
| **City:** | Minneapolis **County:** Hennepin |
| **Issuance date:** | February 16, 2018 |
| **Expiration date:** | February 15, 2023 |

The State of Minnesota, on behalf of its citizens through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA/Agency), authorizes the Permittee to operate a disposal system at the facility named above in accordance with the requirements of this permit.

The goal of this permit is to reduce pollutant levels in point source discharges and protect water quality in accordance with the U.S. Clean Water Act, Minnesota statues and rules, and federal laws and regulations.

This permit is effective on the issuance date identified above. This permit expires at midnight on the expiration date identified above.

*Signature:* Duane Duncanson
________________________________________________________________________________
*This document has been electronically signed.*
Duane Duncanson *for the* Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Supervisor, Municipal Stormwater Unit
Stormwater Section
Municipal Division

If you have questions about this permit, including specific permit requirements, permit reporting, or permit compliance status, please contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at:

**Municipal Stormwater Program**
**Municipal Division**
**Minnesota Pollution Control Agency**
**520 Lafayette Road North**
**St. Paul, MN 55155-4194**
**Telephone: 651-296-6300 or toll free in Minnesota: 800-657-3864**

<!-- page 864 -->
# TABLE OF CONTENTS

**PART I. AUTHORIZATION UNDER THIS PERMIT** ......................................................................................................................................3
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. ELIGIBILITY.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION................................................................................................................................................ 3
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. PERMIT AUTHORIZATION................................................................................................................................................................. 4
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;D. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES..................................................................................................................................................... 4
**PART II. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS** ...............................................................................................................................................6
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. APPLICATION FOR REAUTHORIZATION........................................................................................................................................ 6
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. DISCHARGES TO IMPAIRED WATERS WITH A USEPA-APPROVED TMDL THAT INCLUDES AN APPLICABLE WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION (WLA)................................................................................................................................................................ 6
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. ANTI-DEGRADATION ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................................................... 7
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;D. SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION.................................................................................................................................................... 7
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E. APPLICATION RECORD RETENTION.............................................................................................................................................. 7
**PART III. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP)** ......................................................................................................8
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. REGULATORY MECHANISM(S) ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE PROCEDURES (ERPs)................................................................................................................... 8
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURES (MCMs)................................................................................................................................. 8
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Public Education and Outreach...................................................................................................................................................... 9
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Public Participation and Involvement ......................................................................................................................................... 10
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) .................................................................................................................. 11
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control ........................................................................................................................... 14
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management............................................................................................................................. 17
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations................................................................................ 20
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7. Stormwater Runoff Monitoring and Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 27
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;8. Additional MCM requirements of the SWMP ............................................................................................................................ 29
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;D. DISCHARGES TO IMPAIRED WATERS WITH A USEPA-APPROVED TMDL THAT INCLUDES AN APPLICABLE WLA .... 29
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E. ALUM OR FERRIC CHLORIDE PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 30
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;F. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP) MODIFICATION................................................................................. 32
**SWMP ASSESSMENT, UPDATES, REPORTING AND OTHER SUBMITTALS** ................................................................................34
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. SWMP ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 34
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. SWMP UPDATES............................................................................................................................................................................... 34
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. RECORDKEEPING............................................................................................................................................................................. 34
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;D. ANNUAL REPORTING...................................................................................................................................................................... 34
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E. WHERE TO SUBMIT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40
**PART V. GENERAL CONDITIONS** ..........................................................................................................................................................41
**APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS** ..............................................................................................43

<!-- page 865 -->
### PART I. AUTHORIZATION UNDER THIS PERMIT

#### A. ELIGIBILITY

To be eligible for authorization to **discharge stormwater** under this permit, the applicant must be an **owner and/or operator (owner/operator)** of a **large municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)** as defined in 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(4).

1. Authorized **Stormwater Discharges**

   This permit authorizes **stormwater discharges** from the **MS4**.

2. Authorized Non-**Stormwater Discharges**

   The following categories of **non-stormwater discharges** or flows are authorized under this permit to enter the **Permittee’s MS4** only if the **Permittee** does not identify them as significant contributors of pollutants (i.e., **illicit discharges**), in which case the **discharges** or flows must be addressed in the **Permittee’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP)**: water line flushing, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising groundwaters, uncontaminated groundwater infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR § 35.2005[^p865-b][20]), uncontaminated pumped groundwater, **discharges** from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, springs, water from crawl space pumps, footing drains, lawn watering, individual residential car washing, flows from riparian habitats and **wetlands**, dechlorinated swimming pool **discharges**, street wash water, and **discharges** of flows from firefighting activities.

#### B. LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORIZATION

The following **discharges** or activities are not authorized by this permit:

1. **Non-stormwater discharges**, except those authorized in Part I.A.2.

2. **Discharges** of **stormwater** to the **MS4** from activities requiring a separate NPDES/SDS permit. This permit does not replace or satisfy any other permitting requirements.

3. **Discharges** of **stormwater** to the **MS4** from any other entity located in the drainage area or outside the drainage area. Only the **Permittee’s MS4** and the portions of the storm sewer system under the **Permittee’s** operational control are authorized by this permit.

4. This permit does not replace or satisfy any environmental review requirements, including those under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (Minn. Stat. § 116D), or the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 – 4370f).

5. This permit does not replace or satisfy any review requirements for endangered or threatened species, from new **discharges** that adversely impact or contribute to adverse impacts on a listed endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify a designated critical habitat.

6. This permit does not replace or satisfy any review requirements for historic places or archeological sites, from new **discharges** which adversely affect properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or affecting known or discovered archeological sites.

[^p865-b]: [b]

<!-- page 866 -->
7. This permit does not authorize **discharges** to **wetlands** unless the **Permittee** is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. R. 7050.0186.

### C. PERMIT AUTHORIZATION

For an applicant to be authorized to **discharge stormwater** from a **large MS4** under this permit the **Commissioner** will communicate to the **Permittee** as to whether the permit should be issued or denied in accordance with Minn. R. 7001. Upon receipt of written notification from the **Commissioner** of permit coverage, the **Permittee** is authorized to **discharge stormwater** from the **large MS4** under the terms and conditions of this permit.

### D. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

1. The **Commissioner** may modify this permit or issue other permits, in accordance with Minn. R. 7001, to include more stringent effluent limitations or permit requirements that modify or are in addition to the Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) in Part III.C. of this permit, or both. Modifications may be based on the **Commissioner’s** determination that such modifications are needed to protect water quality.

2. The **Permittee** must manage, operate, and maintain the storm sewer system and areas drained by the storm sewer system within the **Permittee’s** jurisdiction to **reduce** the **discharge** of pollutants to the **Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)**. Management may consist of a combination of **Best Management Practices (BMPs)**, education, other control techniques, system design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the **Permittee** and/or **Commissioner** determine to be appropriate.

3. Joint **Permittees**

    a. The following entities are Joint **Permittees** under this permit. The titles “Joint **Permittee**” and “**Permittee**” are considered the same and are used interchangeably:

    (1) City of Minneapolis by and through its City Council

    (2) City of Minneapolis by and through its Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

    b. Each Joint **Permittee** is individually liable for:

    (1) Permit compliance for the **discharges** from portions of the storm sewer system of which it is the **owner** and/or **operator**.

    (2) Stormwater management for **discharges** from portions of the storm sewer system of which it is the **owner** and/or **operator**.

    c. The Joint **Permittees** are jointly and severally liable for:

    (1) Compliance with annual reporting requirements.

    (2) Ensuring funding for representative monitoring according to established agreements.

    (3) Ensuring implementation of any system-wide management program elements.

<!-- page 867 -->
(4) Compliance on portions of the storm sewer system where operation, maintenance, or other authority has been transferred from one Joint **Permittee** to another in accordance with legally binding interagency agreements.

(5) Compliance on portions of the storm sewer system where the Joint **Permittees** jointly own or operate the system.

d. The Joint **Permittees** must enter into an agreement to define their individual responsibilities for meeting the requirements and conditions of this permit (Agreement). As part of the Agreement, the Joint **Permittees** must define their individual responsibilities to assure the operation, maintenance, monitoring, and management of the **SWMP** to comply with this permit. This Agreement must become part of the **SWMP** and must include, but not be limited to the following:

(1) A designation of an Authorized Representative to serve as the coordinator of the Joint **Permittees**.

(2) A delineation of responsibilities to assure all parts of the **SWMP** are implemented and managed according to the conditions of this permit.

(3) A delineation of responsibilities for submittal of the annual report.

<!-- page 868 -->
### PART II. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

#### A. APPLICATION FOR REAUTHORIZATION

1. The **Permittee** must submit a written application for reauthorization at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit (Minn. R. 7001.0040, subp. 3).

2. If the **Permittee** has submitted a timely application for permit reauthorization, the **Permittee** must continue to conduct the activities authorized by this permit, in compliance with the requirements of this permit, until the **Agency** takes final action on the application, unless the **Agency** determines one of the following:

    a. The **Permittee** is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of this permit, or with a stipulation agreement or compliance schedule designed to bring the **Permittee** into compliance with this permit.

    b. The **Agency**, as a result of an action or failure to act by the **Permittee**, has been unable to take final action on the application on or before the expiration date of the permit.

    c. The **Permittee** has submitted an application with major deficiencies or has failed to properly supplement the application in a timely manner after being informed of deficiencies (Minn. R. 7001.0160).

3. The **Permittee** must submit with an application for reauthorization a revised **SWMP**.

#### B. DISCHARGES TO IMPAIRED WATERS WITH A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA)-APPROVED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) THAT INCLUDES AN APPLICABLE WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION (WLA).

For each **applicable WLA** approved prior to the submittal of the application for reauthorization, the **Permittee** must submit the following with an application for reauthorization:

1. **TMDL** project name(s).

2. Numeric **WLA(s)**, including units.

3. Type of **WLA** (i.e., categorical or individual).

4. Pollutant(s) of concern.

5. Applicable flow data specific to each **applicable WLA**.

6. For each **applicable WLA** not met at the time of application, a compliance schedule is required. Compliance schedules can be developed to include multiple **applicable WLAs** and must include:

    a. Interim milestones, expressed as **BMPs** or progress toward implementation of **BMPs** to be achieved during the permit term.

    b. Dates for implementation of interim milestones.

    c. Strategies for continued **BMP** implementation beyond the permit term.

<!-- page 869 -->
d. Target dates the **applicable WLA(s)** will be achieved.

7. For each **applicable WLA** the **Permittee** is reasonably confident is being met at the time of application, the **Permittee** must provide the following documentation:

    a. Implemented **BMPs** used to meet each **applicable WLA**.

    b. A narrative describing the **Permittee’s** strategy for long-term continuation of meeting each **applicable WLA**.

C. <u>ANTI-DEGRADATION ASSESSMENT</u>

The **Permittee** must submit with an application for reauthorization, data and information requested by the **Commissioner** for an anti-degradation assessment of impacts from **stormwater** runoff in accordance with Minn. R. 7050.0290, subp. 2.

D. <u>SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION FOR REAUTHORIZATION</u>

The **Permittee** must use an electronic submittal process, when provided by the **Agency**, for submitting an application for reauthorization developed in accordance with Part II.A. – C. of this permit. When submitting an application electronically is not possible, the **Permittee** must use the following mailing address:

Supervisor, Municipal Stormwater Unit
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

E. <u>APPLICATION FOR REAUTHORIZATION RECORD RETENTION</u>

The applicant must retain copies of the application for reauthorization, all data and information used by the applicant to complete the application, and any additional information requested by the **Commissioner** during the review of the application, for a period of at least three years beyond the date of permit expiration. This period is automatically extended during the course of an unresolved enforcement action regarding the **MS4** or as requested by the **Commissioner**.

<!-- page 870 -->
### PART III. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP)

The **Permittee** must continue to develop, implement, and enforce a **SWMP** designed to **reduce** the **discharge** of pollutants from the **MS4** to the **Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)**, to protect water quality and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act and the conditions of this permit. The **SWMP** is an enforceable part of the permit.

The **SWMP** must utilize an adaptive management strategy by which the **Permittee** continuously monitors, analyzes, and adjusts the **SWMP** to achieve pollutant reductions to the **MEP**. The **SWMP** must include the Minimum Control Measures (described in Part III.C.1. – 8) and must conform with the requirements of Part III.A. – E. The **SWMP** must consist of the following:

A. <u>REGULATORY MECHANISM(S)</u>

To the extent allowable under state, tribal or local law, the **Permittee** must develop, implement, and enforce a regulatory mechanism(s) to meet the terms and conditions of Part III.C.3. – 5. A regulatory mechanism(s) for the purposes of this permit may consist of contract language(s), ordinance(s), permit(s), standard(s), or any other mechanism(s), that will be enforced by the **Permittee**.

B. <u>ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE PROCEDURES (ERPs)</u>

1. The **Permittee** must develop and implement written ERPs to enforce and compel compliance with the regulatory mechanism(s) described in Part III.A.

2. Enforcement conducted by the **Permittee** pursuant to the ERPs must be documented and include, at a minimum, the following:

    a. Name of the **person** responsible for violating the terms and conditions of the **Permittee’s** regulatory mechanism(s).

    b. Date(s) and location(s) of the observed violation(s).

    c. Description of the violation(s), including reference(s) to relevant regulatory mechanism(s).

    d. Corrective action(s), including a completion schedule, issued by the **Permittee**.

    e. Date(s) and type(s) of enforcement used to compel compliance (e.g., verbal warning, written notice, citation, stop work order, withholding of local authorizations, etc.).

    f. Referrals to other regulatory organizations, if any.

    g. Date(s) violation(s) resolved.

C. <u>MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURES (MCMs)</u>

The MCMs listed below must be included in the **SWMP**. The **Permittee** must define appropriate **BMPs** and measurable goals for each MCM.

<!-- page 871 -->
1. Public Education and Outreach

The **Permittee** must continue to implement a public education and outreach program of appropriate **BMPs** directed at, but not limited to: residents, developers, businesses, elected officials, policy makers, and municipal staff. **BMPs** must take into account known water quality impairments, community concerns, and the public’s knowledge of **stormwater runoff impacts**. At a minimum, the **Permittee** must:

a. Implement the following education and outreach activities. The activities below must be implemented at least once throughout the permit term and the **Permittee** may prioritize the number of activities implemented during each year of the permit term.

(1) A multi-lingual program for residents and businesses to increase the level of awareness about **stormwater runoff impacts** to **receiving waters**. This activity must utilize a variety of communication tools and methods to reach the target audiences and inform them of strategies to **reduce pollutants** in **stormwater runoff**.

(2) Educate the public, businesses, and commercial applicators on the proper application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers and the benefits of retaining grass clippings and leaf litter on lawn surfaces.

(3) Educate the public on proper pet waste disposal.

(4) Educate the public and municipal and commercial applicators on the proper management and application of de-icing and anti-icing compounds for winter maintenance.

(5) Educate developers and contractors on post-construction **stormwater management BMP** design, construction, and maintenance methods.

(6) Educate the public about **impaired waters** within the jurisdiction and the **TMDLs** developed to address the impairments.

b. Develop and implement an education and outreach work plan, included in the **SWMP**, that consists of the following:

(1) Specific activities and timelines for each of the topics in Part III.C.1.a.(1) – (6).

(2) Target audiences for each activity where the audience has not been identified in Part III.C.1.a.(1) – (6).

(3) Measurable goals for each activity and target audience. Measurable goals must be stated in terms of increased awareness, increased understanding, acquired skills, and/or desired changes in behavior.

(4) A description of coordination with other **stormwater** education and outreach programs being implemented by other organizations, if applicable. Include a list of formal agreements or partnerships describing the roles performed by the other organizations on behalf of the **Permittee**.

(5) An annual evaluation to measure the extent to which measurable goals for each activity and target audience are attained.

(6) The name or title of the municipal staff responsible for work plan implementation.

<!-- page 872 -->
c. Maintain documentation of the following information:

(1) All information required under Part III.C.1.b.

(2) Any modifications made to the program as a result of the annual evaluation under Part III.C.1.b.(5).

(3) Activities held, including dates, to reach measurable goals described in Part III.C.1.b.(3).

(4) Quantities and descriptions of educational materials distributed, including dates distributed.

### 2. Public Participation and Involvement

The **Permittee** must revise their current program and continue to implement a public participation and involvement program to solicit public input on the **SWMP**. At a minimum, the **Permittee** must:

a. Hold at least one public meeting per year for the public to provide input on the adequacy of the **SWMP** and the annual report. The **Permittee** must hold the public meeting prior to the submittal of the annual report to the **Commissioner**. The meeting and notice must include the following information:

(1) The public meeting must be held within the jurisdiction of the **Permittee**.

(2) The **Permittee** must prepare and publish a notice of the public meeting at least 30 days before the meeting. The notice of the public meeting must include the following information:

(a) A reference to the **SWMP**, the annual report, and the proposed modifications to the **SWMP**.

(b) The date, time, and location of the public meeting.

(c) A description of the manner in which the public meeting will be conducted and information about where a copy of the **SWMP** and annual report are available for public review.

(3) The **Permittee** must publish the notice in a newspaper or similar publication of general circulation in the vicinity of the **Permittee’s** jurisdiction. A copy of the notice must be made available to the following: the **Agency Commissioner**, appropriate county officials, any governmental entities that have jurisdiction over activities that directly or indirectly relate to **stormwater** management in the **Permittee’s** jurisdiction, and all other **persons** who have requested that they be informed of public meetings regarding the **SWMP** and annual report.

b. Provide access to the following **stormwater**-related public documents on the **Permittee’s** website:

(1) Current Phase I **MS4** individual permit.

(2) Current **SWMP**.

(3) Current annual report.

(4) Current **stormwater** runoff monitoring and analysis report.

<!-- page 873 -->
c. Collect public input on the adequacy of the **SWMP**, including input from the public meeting. The **Permittee** must provide the public a reasonable opportunity to make oral statements concerning the **SWMP**.

d. Consider the public input received on the **SWMP** and make appropriate adjustments.

e. Include a formal resolution from the **Permittee’s** governing body adopting the annual report and the **SWMP** with the annual report.

f. Maintain documentation of the following information:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1) All relevant written input submitted by **persons** regarding the **SWMP**.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2) All responses from the **Permittee** to written input received regarding the **SWMP**, including any modifications made to the **SWMP** as a result of the written input received.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(3) Date(s) and location(s) of events held for purposes of compliance with this requirement.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(4) Notices provided to the public of any events scheduled to meet this requirement, including any electronic correspondence (e.g., website, e-mail distribution lists, notices, etc.).

3. **Illicit Discharge** Detection and Elimination (IDDE)

The **Permittee** must continue to implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate **illicit discharges** as defined in 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(2). To the **MEP**, the **Permittee** must minimize any adverse impact to **receiving waters** from all unauthorized **discharges**, whether random, frequent, infrequent, accidental or otherwise consisting of pathogens, nutrients, oil, toxic pollutants or other hazardous substances consistent with Minn. Stat. §115.061 and 40 CFR pts. 110 and 116. This requirement applies to **discharges** to the storm sewer system within the **Permittee’s** jurisdiction including physical connections. The **Permittee** must also select and implement a program of appropriate **BMPs** and measurable goals for this MCM. At a minimum, the **Permittee** must:

a. Update an electronic inventory and map of the storm sewer system, identifying:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(1) **Receiving waters**.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(2) **Structural stormwater BMPs** (except catch basins and storm drain inlets without sumps), including:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(a) The size of the subwatershed area draining to the **structural stormwater BMP**.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(b) The design capacity, estimated design capacity or size of the **structural stormwater BMP**.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(3) Land use types.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(4) All **pipes**, ditches and swales, including **stormwater** flow direction. Catch basin lead **pipes** must be added, when applicable.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(5) **Permittee**-owned facilities.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(6) **Outfalls**, including:

<!-- page 874 -->
(a) **Outfall** identification number.

(b) Geographic coordinate of **outfall** location.

(c) Size of **outfall pipe**.

(d) Size of the subwatershed area draining to each **outfall**.

(e) Percent of **impervious surfaces** in the subwatershed area draining to each **outfall**.

(f) The number and type of **structural stormwater BMPs** in the subwatershed area that drains to each **outfall**.

(7) **Stormwater** inflows from other **MS4s**.

b. Effectively prohibit, through ordinance or **other regulatory mechanism** and appropriate ERPs, **illicit discharges** into the **MS4**.

c. Continue to develop and implement the following processes and procedures:

(1) Receive, track, and investigate complaints of **illicit discharges** including goals for responding to and eliminating **illicit discharges**.

(2) Identify the source of the **illicit discharges**.

(3) Enforce violations of prohibitions on **illicit discharges**.

(4) Limit infiltration of seepage from municipal sanitary sewers to the **MS4**.

d. Continue to develop and implement a dry weather field screening program to detect and eliminate **illicit discharges** (except non-**stormwater discharges** as identified in Part I.A.2.), including illegal dumping, to the system. The field screening program must include:

(1) Written procedures that describe how the **Permittee** will prioritize and investigate portions of the **MS4** where there is a reasonable potential to contain **illicit discharges** or other sources of **illicit discharges**. The **Permittee** must prioritize investigations based on the results of field screening, the presence of potential sources of illicit **discharges** in the geographic area drained by that portion of the **MS4**, history, land use, sanitary sewer system, proximity to sensitive waters and other appropriate information.

(2) Areas or locations to be evaluated.

(3) A schedule for the field screening activities.

(4) Pollutants of interest.

(5) Evaluation procedures including non-sampling evaluation (e.g., visual observations, odors, etc.).

(6) Sampling procedures.

(7) Record keeping.

<!-- page 875 -->
(8) Notification to the Department of Public Safety Duty Officer as required in Minn. Stat. § 115.061.

(9) The dry weather field screening may be implemented in conjunction with the **outfall** inspection and monitoring programs required by Part III.C.6.e(2) as well as during routine maintenance activities performed in areas included in the **Permittee’s** jurisdiction.

(10) Implementation of enforcement response procedures when **illicit discharges** are discovered.

e. Continue to implement an education and outreach program for municipal staff, the public, businesses, and industry regarding **illicit discharges** and improper disposal of waste, including:

(1) Communication and outreach to inform the public, municipal employees, and businesses about the following topics:

(a) Identifying **illicit discharges** and illicit connections to catch basins, ditches, swales and **structural stormwater BMPs**.

(b) Hazards associated with **illicit discharges** and illicit connections to the **MS4**.

(c) Reporting **illicit discharges** and illicit connections to the **Permittee**.

(d) Preventing **illicit discharges** and illicit connections to the **MS4**.

(e) Containment and response to **illicit discharges** and spills that may **discharge** to the **MS4**.

(2) Written procedures to promote, publicize, and facilitate public reporting of **illicit discharges** or water quality impacts associated with **discharges** into or from the **MS4**.

(3) A central contact, including a phone number for complaints and spill reporting.

(4) The responsibility for municipal staff to notify the Department of Public Safety Duty Officer as required in this permit and the internal procedures for other municipal staff to respond and contain **illicit discharges** and spills.

f. Implement the following measures for hazardous waste and other industrial facilities:

(1) Maintain and continue to develop an inventory of industrial, commercial, or institutional facilities that **discharge** any flow other than **stormwater** to the **MS4**. The inventory must include the name, location, discharge location to the **MS4**, the receiving water, **discharge** description, and any permit issued for the **discharge**. The **Agency** will provide a list of permitted facilities to the **Permittee** upon request.

(2) A program that identifies non-NPDES permitted **discharges** from industrial facilities the **Permittee** determines are contributing a substantial pollutant loading to the **MS4**, including:

(a) **Stormwater hotspots**, to the extent possible, using industrial/commercial stormwater risk factors and input from Hennepin County Environmental Services and Minneapolis Inspections Departments to identify these **stormwater hotspots** and establish priorities.

<!-- page 876 -->
(b) Municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal and recovery facilities, industrial facilities that are subject to section 313 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).

(3) Written procedures for addressing non-NPDES permitted discharges from industrial facilities the Permittee determines are contributing a substantial pollutant loading to the MS4, including:

(a) Inspecting the facilities.

(b) Monitoring the facilities' illicit discharges.

(c) Implementing BMPs for illicit discharges associated with the stormwater hotspots and priority industrial facilities identified in Part III.C.3.f.(2).

g. Maintain documentation of the following information:

(1) Date(s) and location(s) of illicit discharge inspections conducted.

(2) Reports of alleged illicit discharges received, including date(s) of the report(s), and any follow-up action(s) taken by the Permittee.

(3) Date(s) of discovery of all illicit discharges.

(4) Identification of outfalls, or other areas, where illicit discharges have been discovered.

(5) Sources (including a description and the responsible party) of illicit discharges (if known).

(6) Action(s) taken by the Permittee, including date(s), to address discovered illicit discharges.

4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control

Continue to develop, implement and enforce a construction site stormwater runoff control program that reduces pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MS4 from construction activity with a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, that occurs within the Permittee’s jurisdiction. The program must incorporate the following components:

a. Regulatory mechanism(s)

A regulatory mechanism(s) that establishes requirements for erosion, sediment, and waste controls that is at least as stringent as the Agency's general permit to *Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001* (as of the effective date of this permit). If the Agency's general permit to *Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001* is reissued, the Permittee must revise their regulatory mechanism(s), if necessary, within six months of the issuance date of that permit, to be at least as stringent as the erosion, sediment, and waste controls required by that permit. The regulatory mechanism(s) must include the following:

<!-- page 877 -->
(1) **Owners** and **operators** of **construction activity** develop site plans that must be submitted to the **Permittee** for review and approval, prior to the start of **construction activity**. Stormwater runoff controls described in site plans must be regularly updated by **owners** and **operators** during active **construction activity**.

(2) A requirement for site plans to incorporate erosion, sediment, and waste controls as specified in the **Agency's** general permit to *Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001*. The regulatory mechanism(s) must require that site plans incorporate the following categories of erosion, sediment, and waste controls as described in the above referenced permit:

(a) **BMPs** to minimize erosion.

(b) **BMPs** to minimize the **discharge** of sediment and other pollutants.

(c) **BMPs** for dewatering activities.

(d) Site inspections and records of rainfall events.

(e) **BMP** maintenance.

(f) Management of solid and hazardous wastes on each project site.

(g) Final stabilization upon the completion of **construction activity**, including the use of perennial vegetative cover on all exposed soils or other equivalent means.

(h) Criteria for the use of temporary sediment basins.

b. Site plan review

The program must include written procedures for site plan reviews conducted by the **Permittee** prior to the start of **construction activity**, to ensure compliance with the regulatory mechanism(s). The site plan review procedures must include notification to **owners** and **operators** proposing **construction activity** of the need to apply for and obtain coverage under the **Agency's** general permit to *Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001*.

c. Public input

Provide the opportunity for the public to report non-compliant erosion, sediment, and waste controls within the **Permittee** jurisdiction. Various methods for reporting noncompliant erosion, sediment, and waste controls must be available to the public, including: website application, phone calls, and/or email communication.

d. Site inspections

The program must include written procedures for conducting site inspections to determine compliance with the **Permittee's** regulatory mechanism(s). The written procedures must include:

(1) Procedures for identifying priority sites for inspection. Prioritization can be based on parameters such as: topography, soil characteristics, types of **receiving water(s)**, stage of construction, compliance history, weather conditions, or other local characteristics and concerns.

<!-- page 878 -->
(2) A frequency at which site inspections will be conducted.

(3) Name(s) of individual(s) or position titles responsible for conducting site inspections.

(4) A checklist or form to document site inspections when determining compliance.

e. ERPs required by Part III.B. in this permit.

f. A database of construction sites subject to the **Permittee’s** regulatory mechanism to track site plan review, construction progress and erosion, sediment, and waste control compliance.

g. Staff training

The training must address the job-specific duties for the following position titles or municipal staff:

(1) Erosion and sediment control/**stormwater** inspectors:

(a) Knowledge of the erosion, sediment, and waste control requirements in the **Agency’s** general permit to *Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001*.

(b) Familiarity with compliant and noncompliant erosion, sediment, and waste control **BMPs** at construction sites.

(c) Appropriate **BMP** selection, installation, and maintenance.

(d) Erosion, sediment, and waste control inspection documentation and use of enforcement response procedures.

(2) Other construction inspectors: erosion, sediment, and waste control **BMPs** for construction sites and procedures for notifying the appropriate **Permittee** staff of noncompliance.

(3) Construction site plan reviewers: knowledge of the erosion, sediment, and waste control **BMPs** required in the **Agency’s** general permit to *Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001* and other erosion and sediment control design standards.

h. Maintain documentation of the following information:

(1) For each site plan review – The project name, location, total acreage to be disturbed, **owner** of the proposed **construction activity**, and any **stormwater** related comments and supporting documentation used by the **Permittee** to determine project approval or denial.

(2) For each site inspection – Inspection checklists or other written means used to document site inspections.

(3) Staff training, including a list of topics covered, names of employees in attendance, and date of each event.

<!-- page 879 -->
5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management

Continue to develop, implement, and enforce a post-construction stormwater management program that prevents or reduces water pollution after construction activity is completed, related to new development and redevelopment projects and linear projects with land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, within the Permittee's jurisdiction and that discharge to the Permittee's MS4. At a minimum, the program must consist of the following:

a. A regulatory mechanism(s) that incorporates:

(1) A requirement that owners and/or operators of construction activity submit site plans with post-construction stormwater management BMPs to the Permittee for review and approval, prior to the start of construction activity.

(2) Conditions for post-construction stormwater management:

The Permittee must develop and implement a post-construction stormwater management program for construction activity that requires volume reduction using any combination of BMPs, with the highest preference given to green infrastructure techniques and practices (e.g., infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvest and use, urban forestry, green roofs, or other volume reduction practices). For projects that create or fully reconstruct one or more acres of impervious surface, the project must retain on-site to the MEP (not discharge to a surface water) the following treatment volumes by type of project:

(a) For new development or redevelopment projects (excluding linear projects) a water quality volume of one (1) inch times the new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surfaces, unless precluded by the stormwater infiltration prohibitions in Part III.C.5.a.(3).

(b) For linear projects, a water quality volume of one (1) inch times the net increase of impervious surfaces, in addition to a reduction in stormwater runoff volume from fully reconstructed surfaces, unless precluded by the stormwater infiltration prohibitions in Part III.C.5.a.(3). Where this cannot be achieved within the existing right-of-way, a reasonable attempt to obtain additional right-of-way, easement, or other permission to treat the stormwater during the project planning process must be made.

(3) Stormwater infiltration prohibitions

The Permittee's regulatory mechanism(s) must prohibit the construction of infiltration structural stormwater BMPs to achieve the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in Part III.C.5.a(2) when the infiltration structural stormwater BMP will receive discharges from, or be constructed in areas:

(a) That receive discharges from vehicle fueling and maintenance, regardless of the amount of new and/or fully reconstructed impervious surface.

(b) That receive stormwater runoff from entities regulated under NPDES for industrial stormwater: automobile salvage yards; scrap recycling and waste recycling facilities; hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; or air transportation facilities that conduct deicing activities.

<!-- page 880 -->
(c) Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater may be mobilized by the infiltrating **stormwater**. To make this determination, the **owners** and/or **operators** of **construction activity** must complete the **Agency’s** site screening assessment checklist, which is available in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, or conduct their own assessment. The assessment must be retained with the site plans.

(d) Where soil infiltration rates are more than 8.3 inches per hour unless soils are amended to slow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour.

(e) Of predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils.

(f) Within 1,000 feet up-gradient or 100 feet down gradient of active karst features.

(g) Within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) classified as high or very high vulnerability, as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp. 13., unless the **Permittee** performs a higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and to maximize protection of groundwater.

(h) Within an Emergency Response Area as defined by the Minnesota Department of Health.

(i) With less than three (3) feet of separation distance from the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock.

(4) Stormwater treatment requirements when infiltration is prohibited.

For those projects where the **water quality volume** reduction requirement as described in Part III.C.5.a.(2), cannot be met on site, the **Permittee’s** regulatory mechanism(s) must require the use of other methods of **stormwater** treatment (e.g., wet sedimentation basin, filtration basin) for the required **water quality volume** not treated through volume reduction practices.

(5) Mitigation provisions

There may be circumstances where the **Permittee** or other **owners** and **operators** of a **construction activity** cannot cost effectively meet the conditions for post-construction **stormwater** management in Part III.C.5.a.(2) and (4) on the site of the original **construction activity**. For this purpose, the **Permittee** must identify, or may require **owners** or **operators** of a **construction activity** to identify, locations where mitigation projects can be completed. The **Permittee’s** regulatory mechanism(s) must ensure that any **stormwater discharges** not addressed on the site of the original **construction activity** are addressed through mitigation and, at a minimum, must ensure the following requirements are met:

(a) Mitigation project areas are selected in the following order of preference:

1) Locations that yield benefits to the same **receiving water** that receives runoff from the original **construction activity**.

2) Locations within the same Department of Natural Resources (DNR) catchment areas as the original **construction activity**.

3) Locations in the next adjacent **DNR catchment area** up-stream.

<!-- page 881 -->
4) Locations anywhere within the **Permittee's** jurisdiction.

(b) Mitigation projects must involve the creation of new **structural stormwater BMPs** or the retrofit of existing **structural stormwater BMPs**, or the use of a properly designed regional **structural stormwater BMP**.

(c) Routine maintenance of **structural stormwater BMPs** already required by this permit cannot be used to meet mitigation requirements of this Part.

(d) The **Permittee** must develop and retain documentation that mitigation projects are carried out consistently with Part III.C.5.a.(5)(a) and (b).

(e) The **Permittee** must document who is responsible for long-term maintenance on all mitigation projects of this Part.

(f) If the **Permittee** receives payment from the **owner** and/or **operator** of a **construction activity** for mitigation purposes in lieu of the **owner** or **operator** of that **construction activity** meeting the conditions for post-construction **stormwater management** in Part III.C.5.a.(2) and (4) the **Permittee** must apply any such payment received to a public **stormwater project**, all projects must be in compliance with Part III.C.5.a.(5)(a)-(e).

(6) Long-term maintenance of **structural stormwater BMPs**

The **Permittee's** regulatory mechanism(s) must provide for the establishment of legal mechanism(s) between the **Permittee** and **owners** or **operators** responsible for the long-term maintenance of **structural stormwater BMPs** not owned or operated by the **Permittee**, that have been implemented to meet the conditions for post-construction **stormwater management** in Part III.C.5.a.(2) and (4). This only includes **structural stormwater BMPs** constructed after the issuance date of this permit, that are directly connected to the **Permittee's MS4**, and that are in the **Permittee's** jurisdiction. The legal mechanism must include provisions that, at a minimum:

(a) Allow the **Permittee** to conduct inspections of **structural stormwater BMPs** not owned or operated by the **Permittee**, perform necessary maintenance, and assess costs for those **structural stormwater BMPs** when the **Permittee** determines that the **owner** and/or **operator** of that **structural stormwater BMP** has not conducted maintenance.

(b) Include conditions that are designed to preserve the **Permittee's** right to ensure maintenance responsibility, for **structural stormwater BMPs** not owned or operated by the **Permittee**, when those responsibilities are legally transferred to another party.

(c) Include conditions that are designed to protect/preserve **structural stormwater BMPs** and site features that are implemented to comply with Part III.C.5.a.(2) and (4). If site configurations or **structural stormwater BMPs** change, causing decreased **structural stormwater BMP** effectiveness, new or improved **structural stormwater BMPs** must be implemented to ensure the conditions for post-construction **stormwater management** continue to be met.

<!-- page 882 -->
b. Site plan review

(1) The program must include written procedures for site plan reviews conducted by the **Permittee** prior to the start of **construction activity**, to ensure compliance with requirements of the regulatory mechanism(s).

(2) Include a process for the review of impacts to the design capacity of existing **structural stormwater BMPs** when new or **redevelopment** projects propose to increase the drainage area, loading and/or **stormwater volume** to the **structural stormwater BMPs** compared to the original design capacity.

c. Maintain documentation of the following:

(1) Any supporting documentation used by the **Permittee** to determine compliance with Part III.C.5.a, including the total **water quality volume** to be achieved, the project name, location, **owner of the construction activity**, any checklists used for conducting site plan reviews, and any calculations used to determine compliance.

(2) All supporting documentation associated with the **Permittee's** approval of proposed stormwater infiltration in high or very high vulnerability areas within a DWSMA.

(3) All supporting documentation associated with mitigation projects authorized by the **Permittee**.

(4) Payments received and used in accordance with Part III.C.5.a.(5)(f).

(5) All legal mechanisms drafted in accordance with Part III.C.5.a.(6).

6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations

Continue to develop and implement an operations and maintenance program that prevents or **reduces** the **discharge** of pollutants from **Permittee** owned/operated facilities and operations to the **MS4**. The program must include written standard operating procedures for preventing pollution during municipal operations (e.g., street sweeper operation, procedures for lawn maintenance, fertilizer and pesticide usage, equipment cleaning, and vehicle maintenance). At a minimum, the operations and maintenance program must include the following:

a. A facilities inventory

The **Permittee** must develop and maintain an inventory of **Permittee** owned/operated facilities that contribute pollutants to **stormwater discharges**. Facilities to be inventoried may include, but are not limited to: composting, equipment storage and maintenance, hazardous waste disposal, hazardous waste handling and transfer, landfills, solid waste handling and transfer, parks, pesticide storage, public parking lots, public golf courses, public swimming pools, public works yards, recycling, salt storage, vehicle storage and maintenance (e.g., fueling and washing) yards, and materials storage yards.

b. Development and implementation of **BMPs** for inventoried facilities and municipal operations that prevent or **reduce discharges** of pollutants to the **MS4** and from:

(1) All inventoried facilities that **discharge** to the **MS4**, and

<!-- page 883 -->
(2) The following municipal operations that may contribute pollutants to **stormwater discharges**, where applicable:

(a) Waste disposal and storage, including dumpsters.

(b) Municipal landfills, hazardous waste treatment, disposal and recovery facilities and industrial facilities that are subject to section 313 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).

(c) Vehicle fueling, washing and maintenance.

(d) Emergency response, including spill prevention plans.

(e) Cleaning of maintenance equipment, building exteriors, dumpsters, and the disposal of associated waste and wastewater.

(f) Use, storage and disposal of **significant materials**.

(g) Landscaping, park, and lawn maintenance.

(h) Road maintenance, including pothole repair, road shoulder maintenance, pavement marking, sealing, and repaving.

(i) Right-of-way maintenance, including mowing.

(j) Application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.

(k) Cold-weather operations, including plowing or other snow removal practices, sand use, and application of anti-icing and deicing compounds.

c. Development and implementation of **BMPs** for **MS4 discharges** that may affect Source Water Protection Areas (Minn. R. 4720.5100 – 4720.5590)

The **Permittee** must incorporate **BMPs** into the **SWMP** to protect any of the following drinking water sources that the **MS4 discharge** may affect and the **Permittee** must include the map of these sources with the **SWMP**, if they have been mapped.

(1) Wells and source waters for DWSMAs identified as vulnerable under Minn. R. 4720.5205, 4720.5210, and 4720.5330.

(2) Source water protection areas for surface intakes identified in the source water assessments conducted by or for the Minnesota Department of Health under the Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S.C. §§ 300j – 13.

d. Pond assessment procedures and schedule

The **Permittee** must develop written procedures and a schedule for the purpose of determining the total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) treatment effectiveness of all **Permittee** owned/operated ponds constructed and used for the collection and treatment of **stormwater**. The schedule may exceed this permit term and must be based on measurable goals and priorities established by the **Permittee**.

<!-- page 884 -->
e. Inspections

(1) Unless inspection frequency is adjusted as described below, the **Permittee** must conduct annual inspections of **structural stormwater BMPs** to determine structural integrity, proper function and maintenance needs. Inspections of **structural stormwater BMPs** must be conducted annually unless the **Permittee** determines if either of the following conditions apply:

(a) Complaints received or patterns of maintenance indicate a greater frequency is necessary.

(b) Maintenance or sediment removal is not required after completion of the first two annual inspections, then the **Permittee** may **reduce** the frequency of inspections to once every two (2) years.

(2) Inspect, at a minimum, twenty (20) percent of the **MS4 outfalls** and ponds each year on a rotating basis in order to determine structural integrity, proper function, and maintenance needs.

(3) Inspect all stockpile, storage, and material handling areas that contribute pollutants to stormwater as follows:

(a) Weekly inspections when material is being actively handled, used or disturbed on daily basis.

(b) Monthly inspections when material is not being actively handled, used or disturbed. Install perimeter controls at stockpiles that are not covered to prevent material from discharging to the **MS4**.

f. Maintenance

Based on inspection findings, the **Permittee** must determine if repair, replacement, or maintenance measures are necessary in order to ensure the structural integrity, proper function, and treatment effectiveness of **structural stormwater BMPs**. Necessary maintenance must be completed as soon as possible to prevent or **reduce** the **discharge** of pollutants to the **MS4**. When repair, replacement, or maintenance must be delayed, the **Permittee** must prioritize the needed repair, replacement, or maintenance and implement the following:

(1) Preventive maintenance for the **MS4** components and **structural stormwater BMPs**.

(2) Dewater and dispose of solids, floatables, dredgings, or other pollutants resulting from the control and/or treatment of **stormwater** to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering **receiving waters**. The **Permittee**, in disposing of such materials, must comply with all applicable statutes and rules.

g. Operate and maintain the **Permittee’s** parking lots, streets, roads, and highways to **reduce** the **discharge** of pollutants to the **MEP**. The **Permittee** must, at a minimum:

(1) Sweep public parking lots, streets, roads, and highways under its jurisdiction including prioritizing areas based on land use, trash, and **stormwater** pollutant levels generated.

(2) Sweep streets at least two (2) times per year, once in the spring and once in the fall and sweep higher priority areas more frequently.

<!-- page 885 -->
h. Flood control **BMPs**

(1) Ensure that any flood control improvement projects the **Permittee** undertakes are designed to minimize the impacts on the water quality of the **receiving water**. When repairs, improvements or changes are planned for existing flood control devices, the **Permittee** must evaluate the feasibility of retrofitting the existing devices to provide volume reduction and pollutant removal from **stormwater discharges**.

(2) Document and maintain an inventory of flood control detention facilities that provide rate control of **stormwater discharges**.

i. Retrofit plan

(1) Develop a retrofit plan to evaluate the ability to implement **structural stormwater BMPs** in areas of the **Permittee's** jurisdiction that currently do not have **stormwater** runoff treatment or where existing **structural stormwater BMPs** could be enhanced to improve pollutant removal capability. The **Permittee** must submit the retrofit plan to the **Agency** for review and approval within 24 months of receiving permit coverage. Once approved by the **Agency**, the retrofit plan will become an enforceable part of the **SWMP**.

(2) At a minimum, the retrofit plan must include a discussion of the following:

(a) Retrofits on lands the **Permittee** owns, including public parcels of land or public right-of-way areas for implementation of **structural stormwater BMPs**.

(b) Developing strategies to encourage privately owned parcels to install **stormwater** retrofits to **reduce** and/or treat **stormwater** runoff from privately owned **impervious surfaces**.

j. Employee training

The **Permittee** must develop and implement a **stormwater** management training program commensurate with employees' job duties as they relate to the **Permittee's SWMP**. The employee training program must:

(1) Address the importance of protecting water quality.

(2) Cover the requirements of the permit relevant to the job duties of the employee.

(3) Include a schedule that establishes initial training for new and seasonal employees, and recurring training intervals for existing employees to address changes in procedures, practices, techniques, or requirements.

k. Maintain documentation of the following information:

(1) Date(s) and description of findings of all inspections conducted in accordance with Part III.C.6.e.

(2) Any adjustments to inspection frequency as authorized under Part III.C.6.e.(1).

(3) A description of maintenance conducted, including dates, as a result of inspection findings.

<!-- page 886 -->
(4) Pond sediment excavation and removal activities, including:

(a) The unique ID number of each **stormwater** pond from which sediment is removed.

(b) The volume (e.g., cubic yards) of sediment removed from each **stormwater** pond.

(c) Results from any testing of sediment from each removal activity.

(d) Location(s) of final disposal of sediment from each **stormwater** pond.

(5) Employee **stormwater** management training events, including a list of topics covered, names of employees in attendance, and date of each event.

### I. Integrated infrastructure management program

The **Permittee** owns and operates a historically interconnected sanitary sewer system and storm sewer system. There are seven (7) controlled structures identified in the system that are capable of releases of untreated wastewater. The structures are located on Metropolitan Council's interceptors and are capable of discharging directly to the Mississippi River. The controlled structures are at the following locations in Minneapolis:

- Minnehaha Pkwy & 39[^th] Ave South
- East 38[^th] Street & 26[^th] Ave South
- Southwest Meters – West River Parkway between 28[^th] Street East & Dorman Ave
- Northwest Meters– West River Parkway between 28[^th] Street East & Dorman Ave
- Eastside Meters – East River Terrace & Emerald Street Southeast
- East 26[^th] Street & Seabury Ave
- Portland Ave South & Washington

The **Permittee** must continue to develop and implement an integrated infrastructure management program to maximize public investments to minimize risk to human health and the environment, to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage, and to minimize releases and improve water quality. Requirements of the program include:

#### (1) Incorporation by reference

The following applicable federal and state laws are incorporated by reference in this program, are applicable to the **Permittee**, and are enforceable parts of this program: 40 CFR pt. 136; Minn. R. 7001, 7050, and 7053; and Minn. Stat. ch. 115 and 116.

#### (2) Toxic **discharges** prohibited

Whether or not this program includes effluent limitations for toxic pollutants, the **Permittee** must not **discharge** a toxic pollutant except according to 40 CFR pt. 400 to 460 and Minn. R. 7050, 7052, 7053, and any other applicable **Agency** rules.

#### (3) Nuisance conditions prohibited

<!-- page 887 -->
The **Permittee's discharge** must not cause nuisance conditions including, but not limited to: floating solids, scum and visible oil film, acutely toxic conditions to aquatic life, or other adverse impact on the receiving water.

(4) Control users

The **Permittee** must regulate the users of its wastewater treatment facility to prevent the introduction of pollutants or materials that may result in the inhibition or disruption of the conveyance system, treatment facility or processes, or disposal system that would contribute to the violation of the conditions of this program under Part III.C.6.I. of this permit or any federal, state or local law or regulation.
(5) Additional sampling

If the **Permittee** monitors more frequently than required on the Release Sampling Form (Form) outlined in Part III.C.6.I.(13), the results and the frequency of monitoring must be submitted with the Form.

(6) Certified laboratory

A laboratory certified by the Minnesota Department of Health and/or registered by the **Agency** must conduct analyses required by this program. Analyses of dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and total residual oxidants (chlorine, bromine) do not need to be completed by a certified laboratory but must comply with manufacturers specifications for equipment calibration and use.

(7) Sample preservation and procedure

Sample preservation and test procedures for the analysis of pollutants must conform to 40 CFR pt. 136 and Minn. R. 7041.3200.

(8) Equipment calibration

Flow meters, pumps, flumes, lift stations, or other flow monitoring equipment used for purposes of determining compliance with this program must be checked and/or calibrated for accuracy at least twice annually.

(9) Maintain records

The **Permittee** must keep the records required by this program for at least three years, including any calculations, original recordings from automatic monitoring instruments, and laboratory sheets. The **Permittee** must extend these record retention periods upon request of the **Agency**. The **Permittee** must maintain records for each sample and measurement. The records must include the following information:

(a) The exact place, date, and time of the sample or measurement.

(b) The date of analysis.

(c) The name of the **person** who performed the sample collection, measurement, analysis, or calculation.

<!-- page 888 -->
(d) The analytical techniques, procedures and methods used.

(e) The results of the analysis.

(10) Subject to enforcement action and penalties

Noncompliance with a term or condition of this program subjects the **Permittee** to penalties provided by federal and state law set forth in section 309 of the Clean Water Act; United States Code, Title 33, section 1319, as amended; and in Minn. Stat. § 115.071 and 116.072, including monetary penalties, imprisonment, or both.

(11) Noncompliance defense

It shall not be a defense for the **Permittee** in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this program.

(12) Discovery of a release

Upon discovery of a release, the **Permittee** must:

(a) Take all reasonable steps to immediately end the release.

(b) In concert with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, notify the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Duty Officer at 1-800-422-0798 or 651-649-5451 (metro area) immediately upon discovery of the release. You may contact the **Agency** during business hours at 1-800-657-3864 or 651-296-6300 (metro area).

(c) Recover as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible all substances and materials released or immediately take other action as may be reasonably possible to minimize or abate pollution to waters of the state or potential impacts to human health caused thereby. If the released materials or substances cannot be immediately or completely recovered, the **Permittee** must contact the **Agency**. If directed by the **Agency**, the **Permittee** must consult with other local, state or federal agencies (such as the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and/or the Wetland Conservation Act authority) for implementation of additional clean-up or remediation activities in wetland or other sensitive areas.

(13) Sampling of a release

Upon discovery of a release, the **Permittee** must:

(a) Collect representative samples of the release. The **Permittee** must sample the release for parameters of concern immediately following discovery of the release. The **Permittee** may contact the **Agency** during business hours to discuss the sampling parameters and protocol. In addition, fecal coliform bacteria samples must be collected where it is determined by the **Permittee** that the release contains or may contain sewage. If the release cannot be immediately stopped, the **Permittee** must consult with **Agency** regarding additional sampling requirements. Samples must be collected at least, but not limited to, two times per week for as long as the release continues.

<!-- page 889 -->
(b) Submit the sampling results on the Release Sampling Form
(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=18867). The Release
Sampling Form must be submitted to the **Agency** within 30 days.

(14) **Agency** initiated permit modification, suspension, or revocation

The **Agency** may modify or revoke and reissue this program under Part III.C.6.l. of this permit
pursuant to Minn. R. 7001.0170. The **Agency** may revoke without reissuance this program under
Part III.C.6.l. of this permit pursuant to Minn. R. 7001.0180.

### 7. Stormwater Runoff Monitoring and Analysis

The goal of **stormwater runoff** monitoring and analysis is to quantify **stormwater** volumes and pollutant
loads from the **MS4** and to provide information on the effectiveness of the **SWMP**. The **Permittee** must
continue to develop and implement a monitoring and analysis program, including the following:

a. The quality assurance project plan for lab and field methods and procedures must comply with the
following **USEPA** requirements and guidance or receive approval from the **Agency** for variations from
these protocols:

(1) **USEPA** Requirement for Quality Assurance Project Plans (**USEPA QA/R-5**) (**USEPA/240/B-01/003**).

(2) **USEPA** Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (**USEPA QA/G-5**) (**USEPA/600/R98/018**).

(3) The **Permittee** must utilize Minnesota Department of Health-certified laboratory(s).

b. The **Permittee** must monitor water quality at a minimum of six (6) sites. Each year, the **Permittee** must
select sites to monitor for the following year. Sites may be changed, or rotated, for cost-effective
resource use, however reasonable effort must be made to monitor for at least two consecutive years at
a site. In choice and location of stations and monitoring activities, consider safety, backwatering effects,
and access. The monitoring of selected sites must include:

(1) A determination of **BMP** effectiveness through adaptive management (highest priority).

(2) Representative land use management sites selected by the **Permittee** (second priority).

(3) A determination of contributions from upstream jurisdictions (third priority).

c. The **Permittee** must implement its monitoring and analysis program in accordance with TABLE 1 as
follows:

<!-- page 890 -->
### TABLE 1 - MONITORING AND ANALYSIS

| Analytical data for samples | | | Sites 1-6 Monitored by the Permittee (Types 1, 2, 3) | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| **Parameter** | **Sample Type** | **Frequency (Note 3)** | **Site 1** | **Site 2** | **Site 3** | **Site 4** | **Site 5** | **Site 6** |
| Chloride, Total | Flow-paced composite samples over non-ice time period (approx. March through November) | 10 samples/year, select from events 0.10 inch or greater over range of seasons and events | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Copper,total (as Cu) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Lead, Total (as Pb) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Zinc, Total (as Zn) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Hardness, Carbonate (as CaCO3) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Nitrate + Nitrite, Total (as N) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Nitrogen, Total | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Phosphorus, Total (as P) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Solids, Total Suspended (TSS) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Solids, Volatile Suspended (VSS) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Solids, Inorganic Suspended by difference (TSS-VSS=ISS) | Grab samples at least two times during typical winter thaw (approx. December to March) | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Carbon, Organic Dissolved | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Phosphorus, Total Dissolved or Ortho | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Flow | Measurement | Continuous during period when flow-paced composite samples are collected as required for other parameters in this table<br><br>Point-estimated when grab samples are collected as required for other parameters in this table | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Precipitation | Measurement, at 3800 Bryant Avenue South location | Daily | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Oil and grease (Note 1) | Grab | Quarterly (spring, summer, fall, winter) | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Escherichia coli (E. coli) | | | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| pH (Note 2) | Grab, measured by multi-parameter probe | | X | X | X | X | X | X |

Note 1: Pilot. If oil and grease is less than 15 mg/L in all quarterly samples for the first 2 years of the permit term, the Permittee may end oil and grease sampling at that/those site(s). If oil and grease is at least 15 mg/L in any quarterly sample for the first 2 years of the permit term, then oil and grease sampling must continue through the entire permit term at that/those site(s).
Note 2: Field analysis.
Note 3: Taking into consideration weather and safety.
X: Monitoring of parameter is applicable
N/A: Not applicable

Type 1. A determination of BMP effectiveness through adaptive management (highest priority).
Type 2. Representative land use management sites selected by the Permittee (second priority).
Type 3. A determination of contributions from upstream jurisdictions (third priority).

<!-- page 891 -->
8. Additional MCM requirements of the **SWMP**

   Each MCM of the **SWMP** must include the following:

   a. Identification of the sources of pollutants targeted for reduction and the sensitivity of the **receiving waters**.

   b. A description of and the scope of the **BMPs** for each MCM.

   c. Identification of staff and financial resources, including estimated annual budgets, for the permit term dedicated to implementation of the MCM.

   d. Measurable goals for each MCM that will be used to determine the success and/or benefits of the MCM.

   e. Schedules and a protocol for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.

   f. An implementation schedule for new or revised **BMPs**.

   g. A detailed description or copy of any agreement between the **Permittee** and partner(s) to implement the MCM describing the rights, roles, and responsibilities of each party to the agreement.

D. <u>DISCHARGES TO IMPAIRED WATERS WITH A EPA-APPROVED TMDL THAT INCLUDES AN APPLICABLE WLA</u>

If the **Permittee** has one or more **Waste Load Allocations (WLA)** in a USEPA-approved TMDL, the **Permittee** must select and implement a program of appropriate **BMPs** and measurable goals for each MCM including schedules to meet the timeframes for the **WLAs**. At a minimum, the **Permittee** must:

1. For each **applicable WLA** approved prior to the issuance date of this permit, the **Permittee** must submit to the **Agency** for approval, on a form provided by the **Commissioner**, the following information within nine (9) months of receiving permit coverage. Once approved by the **Agency**, the submittal will become an enforceable part of the **SWMP**. The submittal must include the following:

   a. TMDL project name(s).

   b. Numeric **WLA(s)**, including units.

   c. Type of **WLA** (i.e., categorical or individual).

   d. Pollutant(s) of concern.

   e. Applicable flow data specific to each **applicable WLA**.

   f. For each **applicable WLA** not met by the date of permit coverage, a compliance schedule is required. Compliance schedules can be developed to include multiple **WLAs** associated with a TMDL project and must include:

      (a) Interim milestones, expressed as **BMPs** or progress toward implementation of **BMPs**, to be achieved during the term of this permit.

      (b) Dates for implementation of interim milestones.

<!-- page 892 -->
(c) Strategies for continued **BMP** implementation beyond the term of this permit.

(d) Target dates the **applicable WLA**(s) will be achieved.

g. For each **applicable WLA** the **Permittee** is reasonably confident is being met by the date of permit coverage, the **Permittee** must provide the following documentation:

(a) Implemented **BMPs** used to meet each **applicable WLA**.

(b) A narrative describing the **Permittee’s** strategy for long-term continuation of meeting each **applicable WLA**.

### E. ALUM OR FERRIC CHLORIDE PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT SYSTEMS

If the **Permittee** uses an **alum or ferric chloride phosphorus treatment system**, the **Permittee** must comply with the following:

1. Minimum requirements of an **alum or ferric chloride phosphorus treatment system**

a. Limitations

(1) The **Permittee** must use the treatment system for the treatment of phosphorus in **stormwater**. **Non-stormwater discharges** must not be treated by this system.

(2) The treatment system must be contained within the conveyances and **structural stormwater BMPs** of the **MS4**. The utilized conveyances and **structural stormwater BMPs** must not include any **receiving waters**.

(3) Phosphorus treatment systems utilizing chemicals other than alum or ferric chloride must receive written approval from the **Agency**.

(4) In-lake phosphorus treatment activities are not authorized under this permit.

b. Treatment system design

(1) The treatment system must be constructed in a manner that diverts the **stormwater** flow to be treated from the main conveyance system.

(2) A high flow bypass must be part of the inlet design.

(3) A flocculent storage/settling area must be incorporated into the design and adequate maintenance access must be provided (minimum of 8 feet wide) for the removal of accumulated sediment.

2. Monitoring during operation

a. A designated **person** must perform visual monitoring of the treatment system for proper performance at least once every seven (7) days and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 2.5 inches in 24 hours. Following visual monitoring which occurs within 24 hours after a rainfall event, the next visual monitoring must be conducted within seven (7) days after that rainfall event.

<!-- page 893 -->
b. Three benchmark monitoring stations must be established. TABLE 2 must be used for the parameters, units of measure, and frequency of measurement for each station.

c. Samples must be collected as grab samples or flow-weighted 24-hour composite samples.

d. Each sample, excluding pH samples, must be analyzed by a laboratory certified by the Minnesota Department of Health and/or the **Agency**, and:

(1) Sample preservation and test procedures for the analysis of pollutants must conform to 40 CFR pt. 136 and Minn. R. 7041.3200.

(2) Detection limits for dissolved phosphorus, dissolved aluminum, and dissolved iron must be a minimum of 6 micrograms per liter (µg/L), 10 µg/L, and 20 µg/L, respectively.

(3) pH must be measured within 15 minutes of sample collection using calibrated and maintained equipment.

TABLE 2 - MONITORING PARAMETERS DURING OPERATION

| Station | Alum Parameters | Ferric Parameters | Units | Frequency |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Upstream- Background | Total Phosphorus | Total Phosphorus | mg/L | 1 x week |
| | Dissolved Phosphorus | Dissolved Phosphorus | mg/L | 1 x week |
| | Total Aluminum | Total Iron | mg/L | 1 x month |
| | Dissolved Aluminum | Dissolved Iron | mg/L | 1 x week |
| | pH | pH | SU | 1 x week |
| | Flow | Flow | Mgd | Daily |
| Alum or Ferric Chloride Feed | Alum | Ferric | gallons | Daily total dosed in gallons |
| | | | | |
| Discharge from Treatment | Total Phosphorus | Total Phosphorus | mg/L | 1 x week |
| | Dissolved Phosphorus | Dissolved Phosphorus | mg/L | 1 x week |
| | Total Aluminum | Total Iron | mg/L | 1 x month |
| | Dissolved Aluminum | Dissolved Iron | mg/L | 1 x week |
| | pH | pH | SU | 1 x week |
| | Flow | Flow | Mgd | Daily |

e. In the following situations, the **Permittee** must perform corrective action(s) and immediately notify the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Duty Officer at 1-800-422-0798 (toll free) or 651-649-5451 (metro area):

(1) The pH of the **discharged** water is not within the range of 6.0 and 9.0.

(2) Any indications of toxicity or measurements exceeding **water quality standards**.

(3) A spill, as defined in Minn. Stat. § 155.061, of alum or ferric chloride.

<!-- page 894 -->
3. On-Site Recordkeeping

    A record of the following design parameters shall be kept on-site:

    (1) Site-specific jar testing conducted using typical and representative water samples in accordance with ASTM D2035-08 (2003)

    (2) Baseline concentrations of the following parameters in the influent and **receiving waters**:

        (a) Aluminum or Iron

        (b) Phosphorus

    (3) The following system parameters and how each was determined:

        (a) Flocculent settling velocity

        (b) Minimum required retention time

        (c) Rate of diversion of **stormwater** into the system

        (d) The flow rate from the discharge of the outlet structure

        (e) Range of expected dosing rates

4. Treatment System Management

    The following site-specific procedures shall be developed and a copy kept on-site:

    a. Procedures for the installation, operation and maintenance of all pumps, generators, control systems, and other equipment.

    b. Specific parameters for determining when the solids must be removed from the system and how the solids will be handled and disposed of.

    c. Procedures for cleaning up and/or containing a spill of each chemical stored on-site.

F.  <u>STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP) MODIFICATION</u>

    1. The **Commissioner** may require the **Permittee** to modify the **SWMP** as needed, in accordance with the procedures of Minn. R. 7001, and must consider the following factors:

        a. **Discharges** from the **MS4** are impacting the quality of **receiving waters**.

        b. More stringent requirements are necessary to comply with state or federal regulations.

        c. Additional conditions are deemed necessary to comply with requirements of the Clean Water Act and to protect and restore water quality.

<!-- page 895 -->
2. Modifications required by the **Commissioner** for the **SWMP** must be requested in writing, setting forth schedules for compliance, and offering the **Permittee** the opportunity to propose alternative **SWMP** modifications to meet the objectives of the requested modification.

3. Modifications that the **Permittee** chooses to make to the **SWMP** must be approved by the **Commissioner** in accordance with the procedures of Minn. R. 7001. All requests must be in writing, setting forth schedules for compliance. The request must discuss alternative program modifications, ensure compliance with requirements of the permit, and meet other applicable laws.

4. The **SWMP** may be modified by the **Permittee** without prior approval of the **Commissioner**, provided the modification is in accordance with the following:

   a. The **Permittee** adds one or more **BMP(s)** and none subtracted from the **SWMP**.

   b. A less effective **BMP** identified in the **SWMP** is replaced with a more effective **BMP**. The alternate **BMP** must address the same, or similar, concerns as the ineffective or failed **BMP**.

   c. The **Commissioner** and public are notified of the modification in the annual report for the year the modification is made. If a less effective **BMP** is replaced with a more effective **BMP**, the **Permittee** must include an explanation of circumstance(s) and reason(s) for the replacement of the **BMP**.

5. Proposed modifications must be included in the annual report required under Part IV.D. and the public must be given prior notification and opportunity for comment through the annual report public notice and meeting required under Part III.C.2. Upon written approval of the **Commissioner**, the **Permittee** may modify the **SWMP** to implement:

   a. **BMPs** needed to make reasonable progress toward meeting one or more applicable **WLA(s)** as required under Part III.D.

   b. Modifications to the **stormwater** runoff monitoring and analysis program in accordance with Part III.C.7. of this permit.

<!-- page 896 -->
# IV. SWMP ASSESSMENT, UPDATES, REPORTING AND OTHER SUBMITTALS

### A. SWMP ASSESSMENT

The **Permittee** must complete an annual assessment of the **SWMP** based on information collected and analyzed during the reporting period, including activities implemented in Part III.C.1. – 7. The purpose of the annual **SWMP** assessment is to provide information for improving performance, including but not limited to reducing pollutant loading and runoff volumes, and to optimize associated planning and design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the **MS4**. The annual **SWMP** assessment must be submitted to the **Agency** with each annual report and must include the following:

1. An analysis of the performance and effectiveness of **BMPs** in reducing **stormwater runoff** volumes and pollutant loading to **receiving waters**.

2. An analysis of the effectiveness of the **SWMP** in achieving permit compliance, measurable goals and other **long-term goals**.

3. A fiscal analysis of the budget utilized for implementing the **SWMP** including an evaluation of the resources used to implement the MCMs required by the permit. The analysis must include the capital, operation, maintenance, and staff resource costs for implementing the **SWMP**.

### B. SWMP UPDATES

The **Permittee** must complete revisions to incorporate requirements of Part III.A. – E. into the current **SWMP** within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, unless other timelines have been specifically established in this permit.

### C. RECORDKEEPING

1. The **Permittee** must keep records required by the NPDES/SDS **MS4** permit for at least three (3) years beyond the term of this permit. The **Permittee** must retain copies of the **SWMP**, all documentation necessary to comply with the permit, all data and information used by the **Permittee** to develop the **SWMP**, and any information developed as a requirement of this permit or as requested by the **Commissioner**, for a period of at least three (3) years beyond the date of permit expiration. The **Permittee** must extend these record retention periods upon request of the **Commissioner** and/or during the course of an unresolved enforcement action (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2[C]).

2. The **Permittee** must make its records, including the **SWMP**, available to the public at reasonable times during regular business hours (see 40 CFR § 122.7 for confidentiality provision).

3. Except for data determined to be confidential according to Minn. Stat. § 116.075, subd. 2, all documents, plans, and reports required by this permit must be available for inspection by the **Agency** upon request. **Stormwater runoff** monitoring or effluent data must not be considered confidential. Confidential material must be submitted according to Minn. R. 7000.1300.

### D. ANNUAL REPORTING

The **Permittee** must submit an annual report to the **Agency** by June 30^th of each calendar year. The annual report must cover the portion of the previous calendar year during which the **Permittee** was authorized to **discharge stormwater** under this permit. This report must, at a minimum, consist of the following:

<!-- page 897 -->
1. Public education and outreach

    a. Quantities and descriptions of educational materials distributed and the number of visits by the public to **stormwater** education websites.

    b. A summary of the education and outreach activities held including dates of events.

    c. Any modifications made to the program as a result of the annual evaluation as described in Part III.C.1.b.(5).

    d. If the **Permittee** relied upon other organizations for some, or all, of its education and outreach program, include a summary of activities conducted by those other organizations.

2. Public participation and involvement

    a. A summary of the written public input received on the **SWMP** and the **Permittee’s** response to the input as described in Part III.C.2.

    b. Any modifications made to the **SWMP** as a result of the input received during the public meeting.

    c. The date and location of the public meeting as described in Part III.C.2.a.

    d. A formal resolution from the **Permittee’s** governing body adopting the annual report and the **SWMP** as required in Part III.C.2.e. The resolution must be submitted to the **Agency** no later than August 30[^th] of each year if not available at the time of annual report submittal.

3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination

    a. A description and the date of the most recent update to the electronic storm sewer system inventory and map completed during the reporting year.

    b. The number of spills and **illicit discharges** that occurred and a description of the response, containment, and cleanup of the spills and **illicit discharges**.

    c. The number of **illicit discharge** inspections and/or screening activities completed during the reporting year and a description of the response, investigation, and enforcement response procedures utilized to eliminate the **illicit discharges**.

    d. Reports of alleged **illicit discharges** received, including date(s) of the report(s), and a description of the response, investigation, and enforcement response procedures utilized to eliminate the **illicit discharge**(s).

    e. Sources of **illicit discharges**, including a description and the responsible party if known.

    f. Identification of **outfalls** or other areas where **illicit discharges** have been discovered and a description of the response, investigation, and enforcement response procedures utilized to eliminate the **illicit discharge**(s).

<!-- page 898 -->
g. A description of the education and outreach activities, implemented during the reporting year, to inform municipal employees, the public, and industry about reporting, responding to, and eliminating **illicit discharges**.

h. Update the inventory of hazardous waste and other industrial facilities, including municipal procedures implemented to **reduce illicit discharges** to the **MS4** from facilities within the **stormwater hotspot** area.

4. Construction site **stormwater** runoff control

    a. The number of construction site plans reviewed and approved.

    b. The number of construction **stormwater** complaints received and the responses to those complaints.

    c. The number of site inspections completed and a summary of inspection findings.

    d. The number of violations of the **Permittee** regulatory mechanism(s) for construction site **stormwater** runoff control and the types of enforcement response procedures utilized.

    e. The title of the construction **stormwater** training attended by **Permittee** staff.

5. Post-construction **stormwater** management

    a. The number of new and **redevelopment construction activity** projects required to meet the terms of the **Permittee** regulatory mechanism(s).

    b. The number and type of **structural stormwater BMPs** implemented to meet the terms of the regulatory mechanism(s) for new and **redevelopment construction activity**, including the number of **structural stormwater BMP** long-term maintenance agreements executed during the reporting year.

    c. The number of new and **redevelopment construction activity** projects requiring mitigation, including:

    (1) An explanation of why mitigation was required.

    (2) The types of **structural stormwater BMPs** and the expected dates of implementation.

6. Pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations

    a. A description of **Permittee** facilities and municipal operations that contribute pollutants to **stormwater discharges** and the **BMPs** implemented to prevent polluted runoff from discharging to the **MS4**.

    b. A description of the **BMPs** implemented for Source Water Protection Areas within the **Permittee's** jurisdiction.

    c. A brief description of all **outfall** inspection findings including any improvement projects completed at the **outfall** locations.

    d. A list of the **MS4** components or facilities that need to be replaced, repaired, or maintained and a schedule for completing the replacement, repair, or maintenance activity.

<!-- page 899 -->
e. The results of **structural stormwater BMP** inspections, assessments, maintenance, and repair activities including:

(1) Date.

(2) Estimation of sediment storage capacity and percent capacity remaining.

(3) The date of maintenance and/or repairs completed.

(4) The dates and quantity of removed substances from **structural stormwater BMPs**.

(5) The quantity of material removed by street sweeping. Seasonal sweepings for spring sand and fall leaves must be itemized as part of the total quantity.

(6) The quantity of deicing materials, chemicals, and sand applied to roadways. The location and description of all storage facilities for sand, deicing materials, and anti-icing solution used during winter maintenance activities.

(7) The number, type, and schedule of flood control improvement projects completed, including a description of the pollutant removal capabilities associated with each project.

(8) Employee **stormwater management** training events, including:

(a) Title and topic of training.

(b) Date of training.

(c) Names of **Permittee** staff attending the training.

f. The number and type of **structural stormwater BMPs** implemented as described in the retrofit plan in Part III.C.6.i, if applicable.

7. **Stormwater** runoff monitoring and analysis

a. Proposed **SWMP** modifications to substitute sources of monitoring and analysis data including a discussion of how the data will be utilized to demonstrate compliance with this permit and how it will characterize the nature of **stormwater discharges**.

b. Any significant operational differences in monitoring and monitoring protocols as established in Part III.C.7.

c. The results of the monitoring and sampling data analysis collected by the **Permittee**, or any other entity on behalf of the **Permittee**, including:

(1) Estimated pollutant event mean concentrations.

(2) Estimated total annual pollutant load to **receiving water**(s).

(3) Estimated total annual volume to **receiving water**(s).

<!-- page 900 -->
(4) Estimated effectiveness (e.g., removal efficiency, load reduction, etc.) of **structural stormwater BMPs**.

(5) Calibration and verification of **stormwater models**.

d. A brief narrative description of the monitoring results collected by the **Permittee**, or any other entity on behalf of the **Permittee**, including data with tabulations, statistics, summary tables and graphics, by monitoring site with **receiving water** location description, including:

(1) Continuous flow data.

(2) Sample analytical data identified as storm composite or grab with corresponding flows and storm event periods.

(3) Estimate of storm event rainfall which generated the sampled **discharge** including approximate duration between the storm event sampled and the end of the previous measurable storm event (greater than 0.10 inch rainfall).

(4) Loading calculations: estimated annual and seasonal loads (total phosphorus, chloride, total suspended solids, volatile suspended solids, inorganic suspended solids by difference (TSS – VSS = ISS), and total nitrogen for the continuous monitoring stations.

(5) Summary information for each site including drainage area and estimated annual total **discharge** volume, storm event **discharge** volume, storm event discharge values that were used to calculate event-scale pollutant loads, runoff yield (inches/year), analyte flow weighted mean concentrations and analyte annual mean concentrations.

(6) Map showing **receiving waters** and representative land use management site locations as described in Part III.C.7.b.

8. Discharges to impaired waters with a **USEPA-approved TMDL** that includes an **applicable WLA**

a. On a form provided by the **Commissioner**, an assessment of progress toward meeting each **applicable WLA**. The assessment of progress must include:

(1) A list of all **BMPs** being applied to achieve each **applicable WLA**. For each **structural stormwater BMP**, the **Permittee** must provide a unique identification (ID) number and geographic coordinate. If the listed **structural stormwater BMP** was inventoried during the 2011 Phase I **MS4** permit term, the same ID number must be used.

(2) A list of all **BMPs** the **Permittee** submitted with the TMDL compliance schedule and the stage of implementation for each **BMP**.

(3) An updated estimate of the cumulative reductions in loading achieved for each **pollutant of concern** associated with each **applicable WLA**.

(4) An updated narrative describing any adaptive management strategies used (including projected dates) for making progress toward achieving each **applicable WLA**.

<!-- page 901 -->
(5) The results of the comparison(s) of estimated pollutant loading(s) to each **impaired water** in the **Permittee's** jurisdiction and the **Permittee's WLA** for that **impaired water**.

9. **Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems** (if applicable)

The **Permittee** must submit the following information with the Annual Report. The Annual Report must include a month-by-month summary of:

(1) Date(s) of operation.

(2) Chemical(s) used for treatment.

(3) Gallons of water treated.

(4) Gallons of alum or ferric chloride treatment used.

(5) Calculated pounds of phosphorus removed.

(6) Any performance issues and the corrective action(s), including the date(s) when corrective action(s) were taken.

10. The status of compliance with permit terms and conditions, including an assessment of the **BMPs** identified by the **Permittee** and progress toward achieving the measurable goals for Part III.C.1. – 7. and Part III.D. The assessment must be based on the results of information collected and analyzed, including inspection findings, **stormwater runoff** monitoring and public input received during the reporting period. In addition, the annual report must include:

a. Any partnerships or activities coordinated with other local governments or organizations to assist with implementing the **SWMP** and any agreements related to this effort.

b. A change in any **BMPs** or measurable goals for Part III.C.1. – 7. and Part III.D.

11. In addition, the **Permittee** must include the following in the annual report:

a. A discussion of the modifications made to the **SWMP** as described in Part III.F.4. The discussion must include a description of why the modifications were/are needed. When feasible, this discussion must include qualitative and/or quantitative data demonstrating the effectiveness of the program elements or identifying impacts on the **receiving waters**.

b. A discussion of the proposed modifications to the **SWMP** as described in Part III.F.5. The discussion must include a description of why the modifications are needed.

c. The results of the annual assessment of the **SWMP** as required in Part IV.A.

<!-- page 902 -->
12. Integrated infrastructure management

The **Permittee** must include in the annual report the following information on the previous calendar year efforts to minimize inflow and infiltration, including but not limited to:

a. A description of any release events from the sanitary or combined sewer system, including:

(1) **Outfall** location.

(2) Duration and volume.

(3) A summary of any sampling activities and monitoring results associated with the release.

b. A summary of studies, investigations, and monitoring activities initiated to identify sources of inflow and infiltration.

c. An updated inventory of all identified areas of inflow to the sanitary sewer system, including:

(1) Location and sewer shed of individually identified combined sewer areas.

(2) Catch basins, roof leaders, and other storm water inlets connected to the combined sewer.

(3) Sewer service area in acres for the locations identified in (1) and (2) above.

(4) MCES Regulator identification number and geographic coordinates.

(5) MCES and Minneapolis **outfall** locations and geographic coordinates.

(6) Total area of each Minneapolis sewer shed tributary to an **outfall** and the percent of combined sewer area in that sewer shed.

d. A map and summary of projects completed in the past year minimizing inflow and infiltration, including but not limited to sewer separation projects, lined sewer pipes, manhole lining and repairs, and rainleader disconnections.

e. A description of collaborative arrangements with external partners to minimize releases and improve water quality.

f. A description of the annual expenditures on items a. – e. above for the reporting year.

### E. WHERE TO SUBMIT

The **Permittee** must use an electronic submittal process, when provided by the **Agency**, for submitting information required by this permit. When submitting information electronically is not possible, the **Permittee** must use the following mailing address:

Supervisor, Municipal Stormwater Unit
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

<!-- page 903 -->
# PART V. GENERAL CONDITIONS

A. The **Agency's** issuance of a permit does not release the **Permittee** from any liability, penalty, or duty imposed by Minnesota or federal statutes or rules or local ordinances, except the obligation to obtain the permit (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item A).

B. The **Agency's** issuance of a permit does not prevent the future adoption by the **Agency** of pollution control rules, standards, or orders more stringent than those now in existence and does not prevent the enforcement of these rules, standards, or orders against the **Permittee** (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item B).

C. The permit does not convey a property right or an exclusive privilege (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item C).

D. The **Agency's** issuance of a permit does not obligate the **Agency** to enforce local laws, rules or plans beyond that authorized by Minnesota statutes (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item D).

E. The **Permittee** must perform the actions or conduct the activity authorized by the permit in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the **Agency** and in compliance with the conditions of the permit (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item E).

F. The **Permittee** must at all times properly operate and maintain the facilities and systems of treatment and control and the appurtenances related to them which are installed or used by the **Permittee** to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate funding, adequate **operator** staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance procedures. The **Permittee** must install and maintain appropriate backup or auxiliary facilities if they are necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit and, for all permits other than hazardous waste facility permits, if these backup or auxiliary facilities are technically and economically feasible (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item F).

G. The **Permittee** may not knowingly make a false or misleading statement, representation, or certification in a record, report, plan, or other document required to be submitted to the **Agency** or to the **Commissioner** by the permit. The **Permittee** must immediately upon discovery report to the **Commissioner** an error or omission in these records, reports, plans, or other documents (Minn. Stat. § 609.671; Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item G; and Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1, items G and H).

H. The **Permittee** must, when requested by the **Commissioner**, submit within a reasonable time the information and reports that are relevant to the control of pollution regarding the construction, modification, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or regarding the conduct of the activity covered by the permit (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item H).

I. When authorized by Minn. Stat. §§ 115.04, 115B.17, subd. 4, and 116.091, and upon presentation of proper credentials, the **Agency**, or an authorized employee or agent of the **Agency**, must be allowed by the **Permittee** to enter at reasonable times upon the property of the **Permittee** to examine and copy books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to the activity covered by the permit; and to conduct surveys and investigations, including sampling or monitoring, pertaining to the construction, modification, or operation of the facility covered by the permit or pertaining to the activity covered by the permit (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item I).

J. If the **Permittee** discovers, through any means, including notification by the **Agency**, that noncompliance with a condition of the permit has occurred, the **Permittee** must take all reasonable steps to minimize the adverse impacts on human health, public drinking water supplies, or the environment resulting from the noncompliance (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item J).

<!-- page 904 -->
K. If the **Permittee** discovers that noncompliance with a condition of the permit has occurred which could endanger human health, public drinking water supplies, or the environment, the **Permittee** must, within 24 hours of the discovery of the noncompliance, orally notify the **Commissioner**. Within five days of the discovery of the noncompliance, the **Permittee** must submit to the **Commissioner** a written description of the noncompliance; the cause of the noncompliance; the exact dates of the period of the noncompliance; if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item K).

L. The **Permittee** must report noncompliance with the permit not reported under item K as a part of the next report which the **Permittee** is required to submit under this permit. If no reports are required within 30 days of the discovery of the noncompliance, the **Permittee** must submit the information listed in item K within 30 days of the discovery of the noncompliance (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item L).

M. The **Permittee** must give advance notice to the **Commissioner** as soon as possible of planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility (**MS4**) or activity that may result in noncompliance with a Minnesota or federal pollution control statute or rule or a condition of the permit (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item M).

N. The permit is not transferable to any **person** without the express written approval of the **Agency** after compliance with the requirements of Minn. R. 7001.0190. A **person** to whom the permit has been transferred must comply with the conditions of the permit (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item N).

O. The permit authorizes the **Permittee** to perform the activities described in the permit under the conditions of the permit. In issuing the permit, the state and **Agency** assume no responsibility for damage to **persons**, property, or the environment caused by the activities of the **Permittee** in the conduct of its actions, including those activities authorized, directed, or undertaken under the permit. To the extent the state and **Agency** may be liable for the activities of its employees, that liability is explicitly limited to that provided in the Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.736 (Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3, item O).

P. This permit incorporates by reference the applicable portions of 40 CFR §§ 122.41 and 122.42(c) and (d), and Minn. R. 7001.1090, which are enforceable parts of this permit.

Q. The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby.

<!-- page 905 -->
# APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

The definitions and abbreviations in this part are for purposes of this permit only.

1. "**Active karst**" means geographic areas underlain by carbonate bedrock (or other forms of bedrock that can erode or dissolve) with less than 50 feet of sediment cover.

2. "**Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment System**" means the diversion of flowing **stormwater** from a **MS4**, removal of phosphorus through the use a continuous feed of alum or ferric chloride additive, flocculation, and the return of the treated **stormwater** back into a **MS4** or **receiving water**.

3. "**Agency**" means **Minnesota Pollution Control Agency** (Minn. Stat. § 116.36, subd. 2).

4. "**Applicable WLA**" means a **Waste Load Allocation** assigned to the **Permittee** and approved by the **USEPA**.

5. "**Best Management Practice**" or "**BMP**" means practices to prevent or **reduce** the pollution of the **waters of the state**, including schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, and other management practices, and also includes treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plan site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge, or waste disposal or drainage from raw material storage (Minn. R. 7001.1020, subp. 5).

6. "**Commissioner**" means the **Commissioner** of the Minnesota Pollution Control **Agency** or the **Commissioner's** designee (Minn. Stat. § 116.36, subd. 3).

7. "**Common plan of development or sale**" means one proposed plan for a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct land disturbing activities may be taking place at different times, on different schedules, but under one proposed plan. One plan is broadly defined to include design, permit application, advertisement or physical demarcation indicating that land-disturbing activities may occur.

8. "**Construction activity**" includes **construction activity** as defined in 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(14)(x) and small **construction activity** as defined in 40 CFR § 122.26(b)(15) and **construction activity** as defined by Minn. R. 7090.0080, subp. 4. This includes a disturbance to the land that results in a change in the topography, existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative), or the existing soil topography that may result in accelerated **stormwater** runoff, leading to soil erosion and movement of sediment into **surface waters** or drainage systems. Examples of **construction activity** may include clearing, grading, filling, and excavating. **Construction activity** includes the disturbance of less than one acre of total land area that is a part of a larger **common plan of development or sale** if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb one (1) acre or more. **Construction activity** does not include a disturbance to the land of less than five (5) acres for the purpose of routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility. Routine maintenance does not include activities such as repairs, replacement and other types of non-routine maintenance. Pavement rehabilitation (e.g., mill and overlay projects) is not considered **construction activity**.

9. "**Discharge**" means "discharge of a pollutant" as defined in Minn. R. 7001.1020, subp. 12.

10. "**DNR catchment area**" means the Hydrologic Unit 08 areas delineated and digitized by the Minnesota DNR. The catchment areas are available for download at the Minnesota DNR Data Deli website. **DNR catchment areas** may be locally corrected, in which case the local corrections may be used.

<!-- page 906 -->
11. “**Green infrastructure**” means a wide array of practices at multiple scales that manage wet weather and that maintains or restores natural hydrology by infiltrating, evapotranspiring, or harvesting and using **stormwater**. On a regional scale, green infrastructure is the preservation or restoration of natural landscape features, such as forests, floodplains and wetlands, coupled with policies such as infill and redevelopment that reduce overall imperviousness in a watershed. On the local scale, green infrastructure consists of site and neighborhood-specific practices, such as bioretention, trees, green roofs, permeable pavements and cisterns.

12. “**Illicit discharge**” means any discharge to a **municipal separate storm sewer** that is not composed entirely of **stormwater** except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the **municipal separate storm sewer**) and discharges resulting from firefighting activities (40 CFR § 122.26[b][2]).

13. “**Impaired water**” means waters identified as impaired by the **Agency**, and approved by the **USEPA**, pursuant to section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1313 [d]).

14. “**Impervious Surface**” means a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development. Examples include rooftops, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, and concrete, asphalt, or gravel roads. Bridges over surface waters are impervious surfaces.

15. “**Large municipal separate storm sewer system**” or “**Large MS4**” means all municipal separate storm sewers that are located in an incorporated place with a population of 250,000 or more owned or operated by the United States, a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to state law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, **stormwater**, or other wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management Agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States.

16. “**Linear Project**” means construction or reconstruction of roads, trails, sidewalks, or rail lines that are not part of a common plan of development or sale. Rehabilitation is not considered reconstruction. Rehabilitation includes mill and overlay and other resurfacing activities within existing right-of-way that do not expose underlying soils.

17. “**Long-term goals**” means those goals established in the **Permittee’s stormwater** management program to be accomplished by implementing the NPDES Phase I **MS4** Permit. These goals may have various timeframes and durations including durations longer than one NPDES Phase I **MS4** permit cycle. For example, **long-term goals** may include, but are not limited to, compliance with all **TMDLs** by January 1, 2025; fifty percent (50%) reduction of the annual frequency of street flooding by January 1, 2020; and/or reduction of impervious cover by two percent (2%) within two years of the issuance date of the SWMP.

18. “**Maximum Extent Practicable**” or “**MEP**” means the statutory standard (33 U.S.C. § 1342[p][3][B][iii]) that establishes the level of pollutant reductions that an **owner** or **operator** of a regulated **MS4s** must achieve. The **USEPA** has intentionally not provided a precise definition of **MEP** to allow maximum flexibility in **MS4** permitting. The pollutant reductions that represent **MEP** may be different for each **MS4**, given the unique local hydrologic and geologic concerns that may exist and the differing pollutant control strategies. Therefore, the **Permittee** will determine appropriate **BMPs** to satisfy each of the MCMs through an evaluative process. The **USEPA** envisions application of the **MEP** standard as an iterative process.

19. “**Municipal separate storm sewer system**” or “**MS4**” means a conveyance or system of conveyances including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains:

<!-- page 907 -->
a. Owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to state law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, **stormwater**, or other wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer district, flood control district, or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management Agency under section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act, United States Code, Title 33, section 1288, that discharges into **waters of the state**.

b. Designed or used for collecting or conveying **stormwater**.

c. That is not a combined sewer.

d. That is not part of a Public Owned Treatment Works as defined at 40 CFR § 122.2.

**Municipal separate storm sewer systems** do not include separate storm sewers in very discrete areas, such as individual buildings (Minn. R. 7090.0080, subp. 8).

20. "**New development**" means all **construction activity** that is not defined as **redevelopment**.

21. "**Non-stormwater discharge**" means any **discharge** not composed entirely of **stormwater**.

22. "**Other regulatory mechanism**" means any legally enforceable document, such as a contract or other agreement that has penalties such as withholding payments, fines, or other measures to prevent noncompliance.

23. "**Operator**" means the **person** with primary operational control and legal responsibility for the **municipal separate storm sewer system** (Minn. R. 7090.0080, subp. 10).

24. "**Outfall**" means the point source where a **municipal separate storm sewer system discharges** to a **receiving water**, or the **stormwater discharge** permanently leaves the **Permittee's MS4**. It does not include diffuse runoff or conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or water systems (e.g., when a conveyance temporarily leaves a **MS4** at a road crossing).

25. "**Owner**" means the **person** that owns the **municipal separate storm sewer system** (Minn. R. 7090.0080, subp. 11).

26. "**Permittee**" means a **person** or **persons**, that signs the permit application submitted to the **Agency** and is responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.

27. "**Person**" means the state or any Agency or institution thereof, any municipality, governmental subdivision, public or private corporation, individual, partnership, or other entity, including, but not limited to, association, commission, or any interstate body, and includes any officer or governing or managing body of any municipality, governmental subdivision, or public or private corporation, or other entity (Minn. Stat. § 115.01, subd. 10).

28. "**Pipe**" means a closed human-made conveyance device used to transport **stormwater** from location to location. The definition of **pipe** does not include foundation drain **pipes**, irrigation **pipes**, land drain tile **pipes**, culverts, and road sub-grade drain **pipes**.

29. "**Pollutant of concern**" means a pollutant specifically identified in a **USEPA**-approved **TMDL** report as causing a water quality impairment.

30. "**Receiving water**" means any lake, river, stream or **wetland** that receives **stormwater** discharges from a **MS4**.

<!-- page 908 -->
31. "**Redevelopment**" means any **construction activity** where, prior to the start of construction, the areas to be disturbed have 15 percent or more of **impervious surface**(s).

32. "**Reduce**" means **reduce** to the **Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)** unless otherwise defined in the context in which it is used.

33. "**Seasonally saturated soil**" means the highest seasonal elevation in the soil that is in a reduced chemical state because of soil voids being filled with water causing anaerobic conditions. **Seasonally saturated soil** is evident by the presence of redoximorphic features or other information determined by scientifically established methods or empirical field measurements.

34. "**Significant materials**" includes, but is not limited to: raw materials, fuels, materials such as solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets; finished materials such as metallic products; raw materials used in food processing or production; hazardous substances designated under Section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); any chemical the facility is required to report pursuant to Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); fertilizers, pesticides, and waste products such as ashes, slag, and sludge that have the potential to be released with **stormwater discharges**. When determining whether a material is significant, the physical and chemical characteristics of the material should be considered (e.g., the material’s solubility, transportability, and toxicity characteristics) to determine the material's pollution potential (40 CFR § 122.26[b][12]).

35. "**Stormwater**" means **stormwater** runoff, snowmelt runoff, surface runoff, and drainage (Minn. R. 7090.0080, subp. 12).

36. "**Stormwater hotspot**" means any land use or activity that may generate a higher concentration of hydrocarbons, trace metals, or toxic pollutants than are found in typical **stormwater runoff**.

37. "**Stormwater Management Program**" or "**SWMP**" means a comprehensive program developed by the **Permittee** to manage and reduce the discharge of pollutants in **stormwater** to and from the medium or **large MS4**.

38. "**Structural stormwater BMP**" means a stationary and permanent **BMP** that is designed, constructed and operated to prevent or **reduce** the discharge of pollutants in **stormwater**.

39. "**Total Maximum Daily Load**" or "**TMDL**" means the sum of the individual **Waste Load Allocations** for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background, as more fully defined in 40 CFR § 130.2, paragraph (i). A **TMDL** sets and allocates the maximum amount of a pollutant that may be introduced into a **water of the state** and still assure attainment and maintenance of **water quality standards** (Minn. R. 7052.0010 subp. 42).

40. "**USEPA**" means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

41. "**Waste Load Allocation**" or "**WLA**" means the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution, as more fully defined in 40 CFR § 130.2(h). In the absence of a **TMDL** approved by **USEPA** under 40 CFR § 130.7, or an assessment and remediation plan developed and approved according to Minn. R. 7052.0200, subp. 1.C, a **WLA** is the allocation for an individual point source that ensures that the level of water quality to be achieved by the point source is derived from and complies with all applicable **water quality standards** and criteria (Minn. R. 7052.0010 subp. 45).

<!-- page 909 -->
42. "**Water pollution**" means:

    a. The discharge of any pollutants into any waters of the state or the contamination of any waters of the state so as to create a nuisance or renders such waters unclean, or noxious, or impure so as to be actually or potentially harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, to domestic, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational or other legitimate uses, or to livestock, animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic life.

    b. The alteration made or induced by human activity of the chemical, physical, biological, or radiological integrity of waters of the state (Minn. Stat. § 115.01, subd. 13(b)).

43. "**Water quality standards**" mean those provisions contained in Minn. R. 7050 and 7052.

44. "**Waters of the state**" means all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof (Minn. Stat. § 115.01, subd. 22).

45. "**Water Quality Volume**" means (by type of project):

    a. for **new development** or **redevelopment** projects (excluding **linear projects**) the **water quality volume** equals one (1) inch times the net increase of new and/or fully reconstructed **impervious surfaces** (calculated as an instantaneous volume) and is the volume of water to be treated, through the use of any combination of **BMPs**, as required by this permit; or

    b. for **linear projects**, the **water quality volume** equals one (1) inch times the net increase of **impervious surfaces**, in addition to a reduction in **stormwater runoff** volume from fully reconstructed surfaces (calculated as an instantaneous volume) and is the volume of water to be treated, through the use of any combination of BMPs, as required by this permit.

46. "**Wetlands**" are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. **Wetlands** generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Constructed **wetlands** designed for wastewater treatment are not **waters of the state**. **Wetlands** must have the following attributes:

    a. A predominance of hydric soils.

    b. Inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in a saturated soil condition.

    c. Under normal circumstances, support a prevalence of such vegetation (Minn. R. 7050.0186, subp. 1a.B.).

<!-- page 910 -->
### ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BMP – Best Management Practice  
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations  
CWA – Clean Water Act  
DNR – Department of Natural Resources  
DWSMA – Drinking Water Supply Management Area  
ERPs – Enforcement Response Procedures  
IDDE – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination  
MCM – Minimum Control Measure  
MEP – Maximum Extent Practicable  
Mgd – Million gallons/day  
Mg/L – Milligrams/liter  
MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency  
MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System  
NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  
SARA – Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986  
SDS – State Disposal System  
SU – Standard Units  
SWMP – Stormwater Management Program  
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load  
TP – Total Phosphorus  
TSS – Total Suspended Solids  
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency  
WLA – Waste Load Allocation

<!-- page 911 -->
# Appendix C – City of Minneapolis TMDL Status

<!-- page 912 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 913 -->
Minnesota's Impaired Waters List

# Introduction

The federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards to protect waters from pollution. The goal is to protect high-quality waters and improve the quality of impaired waters, so that beneficial uses (such as fishing, swimming, and protection of aquatic life) are maintained and restored, where these uses are attainable. *Adapted from MPCA 12/2011 Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters.*

The process includes the following steps: 1) Assess waters; 2) Determine whether impaired; 3) Place water on the impaired list; 4) Monitor and study the waterbody; 5) Complete a pollutant load allocation formula (called a "Total Maximum Daily Load" or TMDL); 6) Develop a restoration strategy; 7) Implement the strategy; 8) Monitor changes in water quality; and, 9) De-list if standards are being achieved, or 10) Determine next steps. The list of impaired waterbodies, or 303(d) list, is updated every two years.

| Name of Surface Water (includes lakes, creeks, wetlands, and Mississippi River). Alphabetical order. *indicates waterbody is not in the City of Minneapolis | Receives City of Minneapolis Municipal Stormwater Runoff? | State ID | Next-in-line Receiving Water | Status of Impairment and TMDL Study | Designated Use that is Affected by the Impairment |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| BASSETT CREEK | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 07010206-538 | Mississippi River | FISHES BIOASSESSMENTS (listed in 2004) – TMDL study not started yet, may be reassessed. | Aquatic Life |
| | | | | BACTERIA (listed 2008) – TMDL approved Nov. 2014 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Recreation |
| | | | | CHLORIDE (listed 2010) – TMDL approved June 2016 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |
| BASSETT’S POND* (Part of Bassett Creek. Located in the City of Golden Valley, in Wirth Park, owned and managed by MPRB) | yes | 27-0036 | Bassett Creek | No impairments. | |
| BIRCH POND | yes (portion of southbound Wirth Parkway) | 27-0653 | Landlocked (historic pumping to Chain of Lakes) | No impairments. | |
| BROWNIE LAKE | yes (and from the City of Saint Louis Park) | 27-0038 | Cedar Lake | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998) – Statewide TMDL approved 2008, not stormwater related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2004) – DE-LISTED 2010 (could be listed again if TP rises). | |
| | | | | CHLORIDE (listed 2014) – TMDL approved June 2016 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |

<!-- page 914 -->
| Name of Surface Water (includes lakes, creeks, wetlands, and Mississippi River). Alphabetical order. *indicates waterbody is not in the City of Minneapolis | Receives City of Minneapolis Municipal Stormwater Runoff? | State ID | Next-in-line Receiving Water | Status of Impairment and TMDL Study | Designated Use that is Affected by the Impairment |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CEDAR LAKE | yes (and from the City of Saint Louis Park) | 27-0039 | Lake of the Isles | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998[^p914-1]) – Statewide TMDL approved 2008, not stormwater related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| CEMETERY LAKE | no | 27-0017 | Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska | No impairments. | |
| CRYSTAL LAKE* (located in the City of Robbinsdale) | yes (and from the City of Robbinsdale) | 27-0034 | Shingle Creek | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2002[^p914-1]) – TMDL approved 2009, in implementation stage. | Aquatic Recreation |
| DIAMOND LAKE | yes | 27-0022 | Minnehaha Creek | Was formerly listed for EXCESS NUTRIENTS but removed from list in 2008 because it was determined to be a wetland (or game lake) that had been mischaracterized by MNDNR as a lake. There are no nutrient standards for wetlands at this time. | |
| | | | | CHLORIDE (listed 2014[^p914-1]) – TMDL approved June 2016 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |
| GRASS LAKE (officially a wetland. Was previously part of Richfield Lake, which was divided by construction of Highway 62) | yes | 27-0681 | Landlocked/ Lower Minnesota River | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed in 2006[^p914-1]) – DE-LISTED in 2016. | Aquatic Recreation |
| HART LAKE | yes (and from Columbia Heights) | 02-0081 | Silver Lake | No excess nutrients impairment for Hart Lake, but Hart Lake is involved in the TMDL for Silver Lake. | |
| LAKE CALHOUN/BDE MAKA SKA | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 27-0031 | Lake Harriet | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998[^p914-1]) – Statewide TMDL completed 2008, not stormwater-related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | PFOS IN FISH TISSUE (listed 2008[^p914-1]) – Regulatory action by MPCA in lieu of TMDL is underway (pollutant source in Saint Louis Park), target completion 2022. | Aquatic Consumption |
| LAKE HARRIET | yes | 27-0016 | Minnehaha Creek | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998[^p914-1]) – Statewide TMDL completed 2008, not stormwater-related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | 2) PFOS IN FISH TISSUE (listed 2008[^p914-1]) – Regulatory action by MPCA in lieu of TMDL is underway (pollutant source in Saint Louis Park), target completion 2022. | Aquatic Consumption |
| LAKE HIAWATHA (Part of Minnehaha Creek) | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 27-0018 | Minnehaha Creek | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2002[^p914-1]) – Part of Minnehaha Creek E. Coli Bacteria/Lake Hiawatha Nutrients TMDL Study. TMDL approved 2014. | |

<!-- page 915 -->
| Name of Surface Water (includes lakes, creeks, wetlands, and Mississippi River). Alphabetical order. *indicates waterbody is not in the City of Minneapolis | Receives City of Minneapolis Municipal Stormwater Runoff? | State ID | Next-in-line Receiving Water | Status of Impairment and TMDL Study | Designated Use that is Affected by the Impairment |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| LAKE NOKOMIS | yes (and from the City of Richfield and a portion of MSP Airport) | 27-0019 | Minnehaha Creek | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998[^p915-1]) – Statewide TMDL approved 2008[^p915-1], not stormwater-related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025[^p915-1]. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | PCB IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998[^p915-1]) – TMDL status unknown, target completion 2025[^p915-1]. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2002[^p915-1]) – TMDL approved 2011[^p915-1], in implementation stage. (TMDL name: Minnehaha Creek Watershed Lakes) | Aquatic Recreation |
| LAKE OF THE ISLES | yes | 27-0040 | Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998[^p915-1]) – Statewide TMDL approved 2008[^p915-1], not stormwater-related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025[^p915-1]. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | PFOS IN FISH TISSUE (listed 2008[^p915-1]) Regulatory action underway by MPCA in lieu of TMDL (pollutant source in Saint Louis Park), target completion 2022[^p915-1]. | Aquatic Consumption |
| LEGION LAKE* (located in the City of Richfield; the former Legion Lake wetland area in the City of Minneapolis is now Ferdinand Pond) | yes, Minneapolis discharges to one Legion Lake outfall south of Highway 62[^p915-1]. Minneapolis also discharges to two MnDOT Ferdinand Pond outfalls north of Highway 62[^p915-1], which discharges to Legion Lake. | 27-0024 | Taft Lake | No impairment for Legion Lake, but Legion Lake is involved in the TMDL for Lake Nokomis. Minneapolis formerly had outfalls to Legion Lake, but lake was split by Highway 62[^p915-1] project, and Minneapolis outfalls now discharge to Ferdinand Pond, which is not a public water. It is a stormwater pond under the jurisdiction of MnDOT. | |
| LORING LAKE (commonly called Loring Pond) | yes (little direct runoff BUT takes runoff on occasion from 35W Tunnel) | 27-0655 | Mississippi River | CHLORIDE (listed 2014[^p915-1]) – TMDL approved June 2016[^p915-1] (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |
| MINNEHAHA CREEK | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 07010206-539 | Mississippi River | FISHES BIOASSESSMENTS (listed 2004[^p915-1]) – TMDL study not started, may reassess (baseflow not constant), appears to be on hold until 2020[^p915-1]. | Aquatic Life |
| | | | | CHLORIDE (listed 2008[^p915-1]) – TMDL approved June 2016[^p915-1] (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |
| | | | | BACTERIA (listed 2008[^p915-1]) – Part of _Minnehaha Creek E. Coli Bacteria/Lake Hiawatha Nutrients TMDL Study_. TMDL approved 2014[^p915-1]. | Aquatic Recreation |

<!-- page 916 -->
| Name of Surface Water (includes lakes, creeks, wetlands, and Mississippi River). Alphabetical order. *indicates waterbody is not in the City of Minneapolis | Receives City of Minneapolis Municipal Stormwater Runoff? | State ID | Next-in-line Receiving Water | Status of Impairment and TMDL Study | Designated Use that is Affected by the Impairment |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | | | DISSOLVED OXYGEN (listed 2010) – TMDL not started, may reassess (baseflow not constant), appears to be on hold until 2020. | Aquatic Life |
| | | | | AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOASSESSMENTS (listed 2014) – TMDL not started. | Aquatic Life |
| MISSISSIPPI RIVER (the specific reach upstream of Upper Saint Anthony Falls to Crow River [was previously Coon Creek]) | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 07010206-805 | N/A | PCB IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998) – Targeted TMDL completion date 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | BACTERIA (listed 2002) – TMDL approved Nov. 2014 (metro-wide), bacteria not an issue in this river segment this round, MPCA plans to look again in 2020. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2016) – TMDL study underway with Lake Pepin. | Aquatic Life |
| MISSISSIPPI RIVER (the specific reach between Upper and Lower Saint Anthony Falls) | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 07010206-814 | N/A | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998) - Statewide TMDL approved 2008, not stormwater-related | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | PCB IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998) – Targeted TMDL completion date 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | BACTERIA (not listed, but part of TMDL study) – TMDL approved Nov. 2014 (metro-wide). Bacteria not an issue in this River segment this round. MPCA plans to look again in 2020. | Aquatic Recreation |
| MISSISSIPPI RIVER (the specific reach downstream of Lower Saint Anthony Falls to Lock and Dam #1) | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 07010206-814 | N/A | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998) – Statewide TMDL approved 2008, not stormwater-related, no MS4 responsibilities | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | BACTERIA (listed 2002) – TMDL approved Nov. 2014 (metro-wide). Bacteria not an issue in this River segment this round. MPCA plans to look again in 2020. | Aquatic Recreation |
| MISSISSIPPI RIVER* (impaired downstream of confluence with Minnesota River to Lake Pepin) | this impairment is downstream of the City of Minneapolis segments | 07010206-814 | N/A | TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) (listed 1998) (replaced turbidity with site-specific TSS standard) – South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL near completion. Zero reduction required for Minneapolis MS4. | Aquatic Life |
| LAKE PEPIN* (widening of Mississippi River) (as tributary to Lake Pepin nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators TMDL) | this impairment is downstream of the City of Minneapolis segments | 25-0001 | N/A | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2002) – Lake Pepin TMDL in progress. | Aquatic Recreation |
| MOTHER LAKE* (formerly in the City of Minneapolis, now Airport) | yes | 27-0023 | Lake Nokomis | No excess nutrients impairment for Mother Lake, but Mother Lake is involved in the TMDL for Lake Nokomis. | |

<!-- page 917 -->
| Name of Surface Water (includes lakes, creeks, wetlands, and Mississippi River). Alphabetical order. *indicates waterbody is not in the City of Minneapolis | Receives City of Minneapolis Municipal Stormwater Runoff? | State ID | Next-in-line Receiving Water | Status of Impairment and TMDL Study | Designated Use that is Affected by the Impairment |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| POWDERHORN LAKE | yes | 27-0014 | Landlocked (has been pumped to Mississippi River in the past) | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998) – Statewide TMDL approved 2008, not stormwater-related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2002) – DE-LISTED in 2012, due to improved water quality. RE-LISTED in 2018. TMDL not started. | Aquatic Recreation |
| | | | | CHLORIDE (listed 2014) – TMDL approved June 2016 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |
| RICHFIELD LAKE | yes (and City of Richfield and MnDOT) | 27-0021 | Minnesota River | No impairments. | |
| RYAN CREEK (primarily conveyed by storm drain pipe, about two blocks exposed, on industrial property) | yes (and Ryan Lake) | Unknown | Shingle Creek | No impairments. | |
| RYAN LAKE part* (located in the City of Minneapolis and in the Cities of Robbinsdale and Brooklyn Center) | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 27-0058 | Ryan Creek | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2002) – TMDL approved 2007, DE-LISTED 2014 because of restoration activities under TMDL Implementation Plan. | |
| SANTUARY MARSH | no | 27-0065 | Lake Harriet | No impairments. | |
| SHINGLE CREEK | yes (and from upstream municipalities) | 0701206-506 | Mississippi River | CHLORIDE (listed 1998). TMDL approved 2007, now in implantation stage. | Aquatic Life |
| | | | | DISSOLVED OXYGEN (listed 2004) – TMDL approved 2011, now in implementation stage. | Aquatic Life |
| | | | | AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOASSESSMENTS (listed 2006) – TMDL approved 2011, now in implementation stage. | Aquatic Life |
| | | | | BACTERIA (listed 2014) – TMDL approved Nov. 2014 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Recreation |
| SILVER LAKE* (located in the Cities of New Brighton and Columbia Heights) | yes, from a very small corner of the City of Minneapolis (and from the Cities of New Brighton, Columbia Heights, and Saint Anthony Village) | 62-0083 | Ramsey County Ditch #3, then Rice Creek | EXCESS NUTREINTS (listed 2002) – TMDL approved 2010, now in implementation stage. | Aquatic Recreation |
| | | | | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998) – Statewide TMDL approved 2008, not stormwater-related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | CHLORIDE (listed 2014) – TMDL approved June 2016 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 918 -->
| Name of Surface Water (includes lakes, creeks, wetlands, and Mississippi River). Alphabetical order. *indicates waterbody is not in the City of Minneapolis | Receives City of Minneapolis Municipal Stormwater Runoff? | State ID | Next-in-line Receiving Water | Status of Impairment and TMDL Study | Designated Use that is Affected by the Impairment |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| SPRING LAKE | yes (and from I-394) | 27-0654 | Connection verified to 48-inch to new BC Tunnel to Mississippi River | CHLORIDE (listed 2014) – TMDL approved June 2016 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |
| TAFT LAKE* (formerly in the City of Minneapolis, now Airport) | yes (formerly part of the City of Minneapolis, now Airport) | 27-0683 | Lake Nokomis | No excess nutrients impairments for Taft Lake, but Taft Lake is involved in the TMDL for Lake Nokomis. | |
| WEBBER POND (MPRB is requesting removal from public waters listing due to reconstruction) | no (reconstructed 2013-2015 with no stormwater outfalls to it) | 27-1118 | Shingle Creek | No impairments. | |
| WIRTH LAKE* (located in the City of Golden Valley, in Wirth Park, owned and managed by MPRB) | no apparent City of Minneapolis municipal runoff (MPRB only; parkway runoff appears to be only in the City of Golden Valley) | 27-0037 | Bassett Creek | MERCURY IN FISH TISSUE (listed 1998) – Statewide TMDL approved 2008, not stormwater-related, no MS4 responsibilities, target completion 2025. | Aquatic Consumption |
| | | | | CHLORIDE (listed 2016) – TMDL approved June 2016 (metro-wide). | Aquatic Life |
| | | | | EXCESS NUTRIENTS (listed 2002) – TMDL approved 2010 (Wirth Lake Excess Nutrients TMDL Report). DE-LISTED 2014 because of activities carried out under TMDL Implementation Plan. | |

<!-- page 919 -->
**Color Key:**

| |
| :--- |
| Chloride |
| Bacteria |
| Excess Nutrients |
| Related to Lake Nokomis Excess Nutrients TMDL |
| Total Suspended Solids |
| Dissolved Oxygen, or Bioassessments for fish or aquatic macroinvertebrates |
| PFOS or PCB |
| Mercury – no MS4 responsibilities |

**Notes:**

MERCURY – Presence of mercury is primarily airborne, not stormwater runoff. Statewide Mercury TMDL is being carried out by MPCA. No MS4.

PFOS – Presence of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is primarily related to industrial discharge. Regulatory action in lieu of TMDL is underway.

PCB – Polychlorinated biphenyls.

* indicates waterbody is not in the City of Minneapolis

*Message from Minnesota’s Clean Water Council: We recognize that people are hungry for immediate results; however, managing water resources is an ongoing task, and some clean water outcomes may take several decades to achieve. Once a best management practice have been implemented, it often takes many years, or decades, before a positive environmental outcome is achieved in a highly degraded river, lake, or groundwater source.*

<!-- page 920 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 921 -->
# Appendix D – Watershed District and Watershed Management Organizations

<!-- page 922 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 923 -->
The City of Minneapolis falls under the jurisdiction of four watershed management organizations: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC), Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO), and Shingle Creek Water Management Commission (SCWMC). An overview of the requirements of each organization is presented below, but readers are encouraged to contact each organization directly to obtain the most up-to-date information on their goals, policies, and programs. Contact information is current as of December 2017.

## Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
c/o Barr Engineering Co.
430 Market Pointe Drive, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Ph: (952) 832-2600
Fax: (952) 832-2601
http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org

The Bassett Creek watershed, nearly 40 square miles, is divided into four major subwatersheds. The nine municipalities represented by the BCWMC include: Plymouth, Medicine Lake, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, Minnetonka, Saint Louis Park, and Minneapolis.

The BCWMC adopted its first Watershed Management Plan in February 1972. The Commission adopted its Second Generation Plan in September 2004. The BCWMC’s Third Generation Plan was approved by Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in August 2015 and adopted by the Commission on September 17, 2015. The BCWMC Plan sets the vision and guidelines for managing water resources within the boundaries of the BCWMC.

### Summary of Goals
Water resources management goals developed by the BCWMC are included in Table E.1.

**Table E.1 – Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Goals**

| Goal | Description |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL 1** | Manage the surface water resources of the watershed to meet or exceed state standards and BCWMC water quality goals for wetlands, lakes, and streams. |
| **GOAL 2** | Improve the quality of stormwater runoff reaching the Mississippi River by reducing nonpoint source pollution. |
| **GOAL 3** | Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat in the BCWMC. |
| **GOAL 4** | Take into account aesthetics and recreational opportunities within the watershed when completing BCWMC projects. |
| **GOAL 5** | Reduce stormwater runoff volume for the purposes of improving water quality. |
| **GOAL 6** | Protect against flood risks along the Bassett Creek trunk system. |
| **GOAL 7** | Protect human life, property, and surface water systems that could be damaged by flood events. |
| **GOAL 8** | Reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes to minimize flood problems, flood damages, and the future costs of stormwater management systems. |
| **GOAL 9** | Provide leadership and assist member cities with coordination of intercommunity stormwater runoff issues. |
| **GOAL 10** | Notwithstanding that which occurs from natural processes, minimize erosion and sedimentation to protect the BCWMC’s water resources and health, safety, and welfare. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 924 -->
| Goal | Description |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL 11** | Maintain or improve shoreland integrity and implement stream restoration measures to maintain or enhance ecological functions, as well as human health, safety, and welfare. |
| **GOAL 12** | Increase the quality and quantity of wetlands in the BCWMC. |
| **GOAL 13** | Protect the quantity and quality of groundwater resources. |
| **GOAL 14** | Manage public ditches in a manner that recognizes their current use as urban drainage systems and as altered natural waterways. |
| **GOAL 15** | Raise awareness of the BCWMC’s existence and its role in protecting and improving water quality, minimizing flooding, and preserving the watershed’s ecological functions and aesthetics. |
| **GOAL 16** | Strengthen public confidence in the BCWMC’s expertise and enable meaningful public participation in the planning process and ongoing projects conducted by the BCWMC. |
| **GOAL 17** | Raise awareness of the impact that individuals, businesses, and organizations have upon water resources and motivate the audiences to change persona/corporation behavior that has a negative impact on the watershed. |
| **GOAL 18** | Minimize the spread and manage the adverse impacts of harmful aquatic invasive species. |
| **GOAL 19** | Develop a greater understanding of climate change and its impact on water resources, including stormwater infrastructure capacity and flooding, and develop strategies to appropriately manage future impacts. |

Source: BCWMC

# Policies

Chapter 4 of the BCWMC Watershed Management Plan establishes water quality policies in the areas of Water Quality, Flooding and Rate Control, Groundwater Management, Erosion and Sediment Control, Stream Restoration and Protection, Wetland Management, Public Ditch, Recreation, Habitat and Shoreland Management, Education and Outreach, and Administration. Specific policies include:

## Water Quality Policies

1. The BCWMC will classify priority waterbodies based on desired water quality standards and other uses of the waterbodies. Table 2-6 lists the management classifications of the priority waterbodies.

2. The BCWMC adopts MPCA water quality standards (Minnesota Rule 7050, as amended) for BCWMC priority waterbodies (Table 2-7).

3. Member cities shall classify other waterbodies according to the BCWMC classification system and include this information in their local water management plans.

4. The BCWMC will work with stakeholders to manage its priority waterbodies to meet the applicable water quality goals of the BCWMC.

5. The BCWMC and the member cities will implement the improvement options listed in the BCWMC’s CIP (Table 5-3) to address the water quality of priority waterbodies based on feasibility, prioritization, and available funding (see policy 110 regarding CIP prioritization criteria).

6. The BCWMC will prioritize water quality improvement projects that are most effective at achieving water quality goals, including non-structural BMPs and education.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 925 -->
7. The BCWMC will cooperate with member cities, the MPCA and other stakeholders in the preparation of total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies for waterbodies on the MPCA’s current or future impaired waters 303(d) list, including Northwood Lake and Bassett Creek. The BCWMC will work to align TMDL implementation items into its Watershed Management Plan to achieve efficiency. The BCWMC will work with the cities to evaluate funding options for the TMDL studies.

    The BCWMC may append future studies to this Plan with the intent that they serve as the equivalent to a TMDL study.

8. The BCWMC will continue to identify opportunities to achieve and maintain excellent water quality in priority waterbodies.

9. The BCWMC will continue to monitor its priority waterbodies on a rotating schedule as described in the BCWMC Monitoring Plan (Appendix A). Monitoring may include biota, vegetation, and water chemistry (e.g., nutrients, chloride in streams). The objective of the monitoring is to detect changes or trends in the water quality over time and the effectiveness of efforts to preserve/improve water quality. The BCWMC will determine the appropriate frequency of monitoring under programs funded by the BCWMC.

10. For every year sampling is conducted for the BCWMC’s lakes and/or streams, the BCWMC will compile the available monitoring data, include the data in an annual report available on the BCWMC website, and submit the data to the MPCA in an appropriate format.

11. The BCWMC will coordinate monitoring efforts with other programs including:

    * Member city monitoring
    * Metropolitan Council Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) and Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP)
    * Three Rivers Park District monitoring
    * Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board monitoring
    * Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP) and other monitoring
    * Hennepin County River Watch Program

12. The BCWMC requires all stormwater to be treated in accordance with the MPCA’s Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) performance goal for new development, redevelopment, and linear projects. If the MIDS performance goal is not feasible and/or is not allowed for a proposed project, then the project proposer must implement the MIDS flexible treatment options, as shown in the MIDS Design Sequence Flow Chart, or BCWMC approved alternative.

13. The BCWMC will review projects and developments to evaluate compliance with the MPCA’s Minimal Design Standards (MIDS) performance goals, triggers, and flexible treatment options (which are adopted by the Commission as BCWMC water quality management standards) if the

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 926 -->
projects are located in member cities that have not adopted the MIDS performance goals, triggers, and flexible treatment options, or at the request of a member city. For projects located in member cities that have adopted the MIDS performance goals, triggers, and flexible treatment options, the member cities shall review projects for conformance with MIDS water quality treatment standards, unless Commission review is requested by the member cities.

14. The BCWMC requires public agencies to comply with water quality management standards and policies presented in this Plan in order to maintain or improve water quality of stormwater runoff.

15. Member cities shall not allow the drainage of sanitary sewage or non-permitted industrial wastes onto any land or into any watercourse or storm sewer discharging into Bassett Creek.

16. The BCWMC will maintain a water quality model (e.g., P8) for each watershed. Each year, member cities shall provide the BCWMC with plans for BMPs constructed within their city. The BCWMC will update the model annually to incorporate completed BCWMC capital improvements and BMP information provided by the member cities. The BCWMC will develop a summary report of the water quality model results and provide that report to the member cities to assist in their MS4 reporting.

17. The BCWMC encourages member cities to implement best management and good housekeeping practices to minimize chloride loading to surface water and groundwater resources, utilizing emerging technology, as appropriate.

18. The BCWMC will assist and cooperate with member cities, MPCA, MDNR, MnDOT, other watersheds and other stakeholders in implementing projects or other management actions resulting from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Twin Cities Metro Chloride Project or future chloride TMDL.

### Flooding and Rate Control Policies

19. The BCWMC will maintain a Flood Control Emergency Repair Fund for funding emergency repairs of the BCWMC Flood Control Project features.

20. The BCWMC will maintain a Long-Term Maintenance Fund with annual assessments. The BCWMC will use the Long-Term Maintenance Fund to fund major repairs and major maintenance of the BCWMC Flood Control Project features (Flood Control Project features are listed in Table 2-8).

21. The BCWMC will regularly inspect the BCWMC Flood Control Project system, including water level control and conveyance structures, and perform the follow-up reporting. This is part of the BCWMC’s annual water quality and flood control programs (see Table 5-4).

22. During the first five years of Plan implementation, the BCWMC will work with the member cities to determine responsibilities for major rehabilitation and replacement of the BCWMC Flood Control Project features and establish the associated funding mechanisms.

23. The BCWMC will finance major maintenance and repair of water level control and conveyance structures that were part of the original BCWMC Flood Control Project on the same basis as the

<!-- page 927 -->
original project. New road crossings of the creek that were installed as part of the project will be maintained by the city where the structure is located.

24. Member cities shall be responsible for routine maintenance and repair of BCWMC Flood Control Project structures located within each city. Each member city shall be responsible for routine cleaning, including removal of debris, brushing, and tree removal from the BCWMC Flood Control Project features located within their city.

25. The BCWMC will reevaluate flood elevations and flood risk to affected properties based on the most recent NOAA precipitation data (e.g., Atlas 14) and will determine actions for protection, including partnering with and applying for grants from Federal and State agencies.

26. When implementing BCWMC flood risk reduction projects, the BCWMC will identify properties prone to flooding. The most effective and reasonable solutions as approved by the member city will be evaluated. Solutions to be considered may include purchase of the properties, with attention to impact on tax base and other community factors.

27. The BCWMC will develop criteria for the allocation of funding for flood risk reduction projects, which may include the purchase of property prone to flooding.

28. The BCWMC will monitor or coordinate with other entities to monitor water levels on the primary lakes in the watershed. Water levels on Bassett Creek and other waterbodies will be monitored periodically during flooding events.

29. The member cities must implement the BCWMC’s development policies, including minimum building elevations of at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood level for new and redeveloped structures, as outlined in the BCWMC’s *Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals* document (BCWMC, 2015, as revised).

30. The BCWMC encourages property owners to implement best management practices to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff beyond the minimum requirements imposed by the city’s MS4 permit, NPDES construction stormwater permit and MIDS performance goal adopted by the BCWMC. Examples of stormwater runoff volume reduction methods include:

    * Reducing the amount of planned impervious surface (as areas develop).

    * Reducing the amount of impervious surface (during development).

    * Additional infiltration and/or evapotranspiration.

    * Stormwater reuse.

31. The BCWMC and member cities must require rate control in conformance with the Flood Control Project system design and this Plan.

    The BCWMC requires cities to manage stormwater runoff so that future peak flow rates leaving development and redevelopment sites are equal to or less than existing rates for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year events.

<!-- page 928 -->
32. The BCWMC requires the retention of on-site runoff from development and redevelopment projects consistent with the MPCA’s Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) performance goals. These includes the retention of:

*   1.1 inches of runoff from impervious areas for new development creating more than 1 acre of new impervious area

*   1.1. inches of runoff from new or fully reconstructed impervious areas for redevelopment creating one or more acres of new or fully redeveloped impervious area

*   0.55 inches of runoff from new or fully reconstructed impervious areas for linear projects creating one or more acres of new or fully redeveloped impervious area (or 1.1 inches from the net increase in impervious area, whichever is greater)

*   If an applicant is unable to achieve the performance goals due to site restrictions, the MIDS flexible treatment options approach shall be used, following the MIDS design sequence flow chart.

For all other projects, the BCWMC encourages the use of infiltration, filtration, or other abstraction of runoff from impervious areas for all development and redevelopment projects as a best practice to reduce stormwater runoff.

33. The BCWMC will revise floodplain elevations along the trunk system as necessary to reflect channel improvement, storage site development, or requirements established by appropriate state or federal governmental agencies.

34. The BCWMC will allow only those land uses in the BCWMC-established floodplain that will not be damaged by floodwaters and will not increase flooding. Allowable types of land use that are consistent with the floodplain include recreation areas, parking lots, temporary excavation and storage areas, public utility lines, agriculture, and other open spaces.

35. The BCWMC prohibits the construction of basements in the floodplain; construction of all other infrastructure within the floodplain in subject to BCWMC review and approval.

36. The BCWMC prohibits permanent storage piles, fences and other obstructions in the floodplain that would collect debris or restrict flood flows.

37. Where streets, utilities, and structures currently exist below the 100-year floodplain, the BCWMC encourages the member cities to remove these features from the floodplain as development or redevelopment allows.

38. The BCWMC requires that projects within the floodplain maintain no net loss in floodplain storage and no increase in flood level any point along the trunk system. The BCWMC prohibits expansion of existing non-conforming land uses within the floodplain unless they are fully flood-proofed in accordance with codes and regulations.

<!-- page 929 -->
39. The BCWMC requires member cities to maintain ordinances that are consistent with BCWMC floodplain standards. Member cities must submit ordinances to the BCWMC for review.

40. The BCWMC will review changes in local water management plans, comprehensive land use plans, and other plans, for their effect on the adopted floodplain and Flood Control Project, when such plans are submitted to BCWMC.

41. The BCWMC will update, as necessary, the existing flood profile to reflect any increases resulting from modifications to a flood storage site or the Flood Control Project system, following the approval of those modifications by the BCWMC, local and state agencies, and after a public hearing on the modification plan has been held.

42. BCWMC will review diversion plans to determine the effect of the proposal on the Bassett Creek watershed and such plans will be subject to BCWMC approval. With respect to diversions, the BCWMC:

* Prohibits any diversions of surface water within, into, or out of the watershed that may have a substantial adverse effect on stream flow or water levels at any point within the watershed.

* Requires that plans for intra- or inter-watershed diversions must include an analysis of the effects of the diversion on flooding, water quality and aesthetic quality along the creek.

* Requires effort be made to ensure that there is no fish migration from one watershed to another.

43. The BCWMC will pursue opportunities to collaborate with state agencies and other entities in the development of action plans (or similar management tools) related to the response of surface water and groundwater resources to long-term changes in precipitation and hydrology.

44. The BCWMC will continue to monitor water quantity and quality in the watershed and will seek opportunities to contribute BCWMC data to other datasets, for the purpose of assessing the response of surface water and groundwater resources to long-term changes in precipitation and hydrology.

### Groundwater Management Policies

45. The BCWMC will review all MDNR groundwater appropriate permit applications in the BCWMC excluding applications for temporary appropriations permits.

46. The BCWMC will work with member cities to consider a program to review development or redevelopment projects which include long-term dewatering within 1,000 feet of priority waterbodies.

47. The BCWMC will collaborate with local and state agencies if/when these agencies develop a groundwater action plan in an effort to gain a better understanding of groundwater-surface water interaction and develop management strategies that consider the protection of both resources. The role of the BCWMC may include:

<!-- page 930 -->
* Collaborate with local and state agencies to identify data gaps and attempt to fill those gaps through collection of groundwater level data and/or surface water flow data.

* Coordinate with appropriate local and state agencies to develop a groundwater budget for the watershed.

* Coordinate with appropriate local and state agencies to develop and utilize tools to assess surface water impacts and groundwater impacts of groundwater use (e.g., refinement of the Metro groundwater model, synchronization of the BCWMC XP-SWMM model with groundwater models).

48\. To protect groundwater quality, the BCWMC requires infiltration practices to be implemented in accordance with the following guidelines for determining the feasibility of infiltration:

* NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit (2013, as amended)

* Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) Design Sequence Flow Chart (2013, as amended)

* Minnesota Department of Health’s Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas (MDH, 2007)

   The BCWMC recommends that infiltration practices be designed with consideration for the following guidance:

* BCWMC’s Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals (BCWMC, 2015, as amended)

* Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s *Minnesota Stormwater Manual* ([http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Main_Page](http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Main_Page))

49\. The BCWMC encourages member cities to educate residents regarding the importance of implementing BMPs to protect groundwater quality and quantity.

50\. Member cities shall share groundwater elevation data, where available, with the BCWMC.

### Erosion and Sediment Control Policies

51\. Member cities shall continue managing erosion and sediment control permitting programs and ordinances as required by their NPDES MS4 permit and the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. These programs must address:

* Permitting and inspection of erosion controls

* Erosion and sediment control at individual building sites

* Requirements and procedures for reviewing, approving, and enforcing erosion control plans

52\. The BCWMC will review projects and developments to evaluate compliance with BCWMC erosion and sediment control standards.

<!-- page 931 -->
The types of projects that must be submitted to the BCWMC for review, the BCWMC’s review procedure, submittal requirements, guidelines, design criteria, etc. are provided in the BCWMC’s document *Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals* (BCWMC, 2015, as revised).

53. The BCWMC requires preparation of erosion control plans for construction projects meeting the applicable BCWMC threshold. Erosion control plans shall meet the standards given in the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit (as amended), and shall show proposed methods of retaining waterborne sediments onsite during the construction period, and shall specify methods and schedules for restoring, covering, or re-vegetating the site after construction.

54. Member cities shall perform regular erosion and sediment control inspections for projects triggering BCWMC review and subject to BCWMC erosion and sediment control standards. The member cities will annually report to the BCWMC regarding compliance with BCWMC standards as part of annual MS4 reporting or as requested by the Commission.

55. The BCWMC requires local water management plans to describe existing and proposed city ordinances, permits, and procedures addressing erosion and sediment control.

56. The BCWMC will work with member cities to evaluate end-of-pipe sediment sources and controls. Following adequate source control, the BCWMC may fund removal of end-of-pipe sediment deltas downstream of intercommunity watersheds, or facilitate collaboration among responsible parties to remove these deltas.

### Stream Restoration and Protection Policies

57. The BCWMC will continue to maintain a Channel Maintenance Fund through an annual assessment. This fund will be used to help finance minor stream maintenance, repair, stabilization, and restoration projects and/or portions of larger stream restoration projects.

58. The Channel Maintenance Fund may also be used to finance the BCWMC’s share of maintenance projects that have a regional benefit, or to partially fund smaller, localized projects that cities wish to undertake.

59. Major stream and streambank stabilization and restoration projects will be considered and prioritized by the BCWMC for inclusion in its annual CIP. Stabilization and restoration projects may include any or all of the following components:

*   Restoration of a stream or streambank area to the designed flow rate

*   Restoration or stabilization of a stream or streambank area that has either resulted in damage to a structure, or where structural damage is likely

*   Restoration or stabilization of a stream or streambank to reduce erosion, improve water quality, and improve riparian or in-stream habitat

*   Restoration or stabilization of a stream or streambank to address flooding, mitigation of water quality impairment, or minimizing the potential for water quality impairment

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 932 -->
60. Recognizing their benefits to biodiversity and more natural appearance, the BCWMC will strive to implement stream and streambank restoration and stabilization projects that use soft armoring techniques (e.g., plants, logs, vegetative mats) as much as possible and wherever feasible.

61. The BCWMC will consider improving natural habitat and navigability, and will consider the needs of pedestrians when planning and implementing near-stream and in-stream projects, and when rehabilitating existing projects.

62. The member cities are responsible for funding maintenance and repairs that are primarily aesthetic improvements.

63. The BCWMC will take into account aesthetic and habitat values of future flood control and stabilization/restoration projects.

64. Member cities shall maintain and enforce buffer requirements adjacent to priority streams for projects that will result in more than 200 yards of cut or fill, or more than 10,000 square feet of land disturbance. Buffer widths adjacent to priority streams must be at least 10 feet or 25 percent of the distance between the ordinary high-water level and the nearest existing structure, whichever is less.

Allowable land uses, and vegetative criteria for buffers are specified in the BCWMC’s *Requirements for Development and Redevelopment* (BCWMC, 2015, as amended). Member cities may allow exemptions for public recreational facilities parallel to the shoreline (e.g., trails) up to 20 feet in width, with that width being added to the required buffer width.

### Wetland Management Policies

65. The BCWMC requires member cities to inventory, classify and determine the functions and values of wetlands, either through a comprehensive wetland management plan or as required by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).

Member cities shall maintain a database of wetland functions and values assessment results.

The BCWMC encourages member cities to complete comprehensive wetland management plans as part of their local water management plan or as an implementation task identified in their local water management plan. Completed comprehensive wetland management plans shall be submitted to the BCWMC for review and comment.

66. The BCWMC requires member cities to develop and implement wetland protection ordinances that consider the results of wetland functions and values assessments, and are based on comprehensive wetland management plans, if available. For wetlands classified as Preserve or Manage 1, member cities shall implement standards for bounce, inundation, and runout control that are similar to BWSR guidance; member cities are encouraged to apply standards for other wetland classifications.

67. The BCWMC adopts the Minnesota Rapid Assessment Method (MnRAM) as the wetland assessment method and the wetland management classification system. Member cities are

<!-- page 933 -->
encouraged to use MnRAM for all wetland assessment and classifications, but are not required to perform reassessments using MnRAM for wetlands already assessed.

68. Member cities shall maintain and enforce buffer requirements for projects containing more than one acre of new or redeveloped impervious area. Average minimum buffer widths are required according to the MnRAM classification (or similar classification system):

*   An average of 75 feet and minimum of 50 feet from the edge of wetlands classified as Preserve
*   An average of 50 feet and minimum of 30 feet from the edge of wetlands classified as Manage 1
*   An average of 25 feet and minimum of 15 feet from the edge of wetlands classified as Manage 2 or 3.

Allowable land uses and vegetative criteria for buffers are specified in the BCWMC’s Requirements for Development and Redevelopment (BCWMC, 2015, as amended).

Member cities may allow exemptions for public recreational facilities parallel to the shoreline (e.g., trails) up to 20 feet in width, with that width being added to the required buffer width.

69. The member cities are required to manage wetlands in accordance with the WCA. The BCWMC will assist the member cities with managing wetlands in accordance with the WCA, as requested. The MnDOT is the LGU within its rights-of-way.

70. The BCWMC will serve as the local governmental unit (LGU) responsible for administering the WCA for member cities, as requested (currently Medicine Lake, Robbinsdale, and St. Louis Park).

71. The BCWMC prefers any wetland mitigation to be performed within the same subwatershed as the impacted wetland.

72. The BCWMC requires that member cities annually inspect wetlands classified as Preserve for terrestrial and emergent aquatic invasive vegetation, such as buckthorn and purple loosestrife, and attempt to control or treat invasive species, where feasible.

73. The BCWMC encourages member cities to pursue wetland restoration projects, as opportunities allow.

74. The BCWMC encourages member cities to participate in wetland monitoring programs (e.g., Wetland Health Evaluation Program).

### Public Ditch Policies

75. The BCWMC encourages member cities to petition Hennepin County to transfer authority over public ditches in the BCWMC to the member cities (per MN Statute 383B.61). If authority is transferred to the member cities, the BCWMC and cities will manage these drainages similar to other BCWMC waterways, in accordance with the BCWMC’s latest adopted Plan. Until authority

<!-- page 934 -->
over public ditches is transferred, the BCWMC will continue to recognize Hennepin County’s jurisdiction over public ditches in the BCWMC.

76. In consideration for the original function of public ditches to provide drainage of agricultural lands, the BCWMC will support the efforts of other entities to pursue legislation abandoning public ditches on land zoned non-agricultural.

77. The BCWMC will manage abandoned or transferred public ditches that are part of the trunk system consistent with the policies of this Plan. Member cities will be responsible for management of abandoned or transferred public ditches that are not on the trunk system, but are currently part of their municipal drainage system.

### Recreation, Habitat, and Shoreland Management Policies

78. The BCWMC will consider developing and implementing a shoreland habitat monitoring program for its Policy 1 lakes to monitor biological and physical indicators and to recommend management actions (to cities or for the Commission’s consideration) based upon monitoring results. If implemented, monitoring may include assessment of upland and aquatic vegetation buffer zones, erosion, sedimentation, and the presence of non-native invasive species.

79. The BCWMC will support and collaborate with other entities (e.g., agencies, lake association, cities, counties) to manage and prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species; BCWMC service may include point-intercept surveys of aquatic vegetation, feasibility studies, technical analysis, education, exploring funding options, and applying for grants. The BCWMC will not manage increased growths of native aquatic vegetation resulting from improved water quality.

80. The member cities are responsible for shoreland regulation and are required to adopt MDNR-approved shoreland ordinances, in accordance with the MDNR’s priority phasing list.

81. The BCWMC will promote the protection of natural and native shoreland areas, including the preservation of lakeshore and streambank vegetation during and after construction projects, and the establishment and maintenance of buffers adjacent to priority waterbodies. The BCWMC will seek opportunities to restore disturbed shorelines and streambanks to their natural state where feasible.

82. The BCWMC encourages cities to develop and maintain water-related recreational features (such as trails adjacent to waterbodies and water access points), with consideration for buffers, use of pervious surfaces, and other best management practices to reduce runoff.

83. The BCWMC will take into account aesthetics, habitat, and recreation benefits during CIP project selection and prioritization, and when considering how a project might address multiple Commission goals (see policy 110).

84. The BCWMC will encourage public and private landowners to maintain, preserve or restore open space and native habitats such as wetlands, uplands, forests, shoreland, streambanks, and prairies for the benefit of wildlife through education and by providing information on grant programs.

<!-- page 935 -->
85. Member cities shall consider opportunities to maintain, enhance, or provide new open spaces and/or habitat as part of wetland creation or restoration, stormwater facility construction, development, redevelopment, or other appropriate projects.

86. The BCWMC will cooperate with the MDNR and other entities, as requested, to protect rare and endangered species under the State’s Endangered Species Statute. The BCWMC will review the Natural Heritage Information System during the design phase of Commission projects.

87. The BCWMC will submit data, as available, and encourages others to submit data regarding occurrences of rare and endangered species and native plant communities to the State’s Natural Heritage Information System.

88. The BCWMC will consider implementing a grant or cost-share program to fund the establishment of buffers adjunct to priority waterbodies.

89. Member cities will adopt State buffer and/or shoreland management requirements for public waters in incorporated areas, if and when they are promulgated.

### Education and Outreach Policies

90. The BCWMC will develop an education and outreach plan (see Appendix B). The education and outreach plan will identify key messages about watershed management and guidance for distributing that information to specific stakeholder audiences using various, targeted methods. The BCWMC will regularly view its education and public involvement plan and update it, as necessary.

91. The BCWMC will develop and maintain standard BCWMC messaging items to increase awareness of the BCWMC and its role.

92. The BCWMC will evaluate the success of its education and public involvement plan.

93. The BCWMC will recruit volunteers to conduct monitoring and participate in activities sponsored or promoted by the BCWMC and will provide training as needed (e.g., Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program, River Watch, adopt-a-stream, adopt-a-wetland programs).

94. The BCWMC will support cooperative educational and volunteer programs, such as the West Metro Water Alliance, Blue Thumb, River Watch, Metro Blooms, Metro Watershed Partners, Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program, Wetland Health Evaluation Program, etc.

95. The BCWMC will develop and implement a recognition program (certificates, letters of appreciation, events, thank you ads, etc.) for BCWMC volunteers.

96. The BCWMC will update and maintain its website and use it to communicate with and provide information to the public.

97. The BCWMC will seek opportunities to incorporate education and public involvement efforts into all of its proposed projects.

<!-- page 936 -->
98. The BCWMC will seek opportunities to use a citizen advisory committee to complete tasks meaningful to the Commission.

99. The BCWMC will distribute BCWMC meeting notices and agendas to city officials and key staff. The meeting notice and/or agenda will include a description of the key discussion item(s).

100. The BCWMC will post informational signs at BCWMC projects during construction.

    The BCWMC will consider installing permanent informational signs at BCWMC watershed projects, major BCWMC waterbodies, monitoring sites, demonstration projects, adopt-a-stream/wetland sites, etc.

    The BCWMC will work with cities and other road authorities to install stream identification signs along roads at stream crossings.

101. The BCWMC will regularly hold watershed tours for the Commission and the public.

102. The BCWMC will tailor its communications and educational strategies to present complex and/or technical issues in a manner that is appropriate for the audience.

### Administration Policies

103. The BCWMC will fund 100 percent of eligible project costs for those projects listed in the 10-year CIP (Table 5-3). Eligible project costs are listed in Table 5-1. The Commission will determine eligibility of project costs following the completion of a feasibility study for the project. The projects will be funded in accordance with the BCWMC joint powers agreement and (specifically) Minnesota Statutes 103B.251. The BCWMC will follow the process for ordering projects as outlined in its joint powers agreement and summarized in Section 5.2.1.1

104. The Commission will review projects that trigger BCWMC review. The types of projects that must be submitted to the BCWMC for review, the BCWMC’s review procedure, submittal requirements, guidelines, design criteria, etc. are provided in the BCWMC’s document *Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals* (BCWMC, 2015, as revised).

105. At the request of the member cities, the BCWMC will review projects that would not otherwise trigger review per the BCWMC’s *Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals* (BCWMC, 2015, as revised).

106. The BCWMC will review local water management plans for compliance with this Plan’s goals and policies.

107. The BCWMC will annually evaluate member cities’ compliance with the goals and policies of this Plan (see Section 5.1.1.6). The BCWMC will take appropriate administrative or legal action in response to non-compliance.

108. The BCWMC will review applications for MDNR Work in Public Waters Permits.

<!-- page 937 -->
109. The BCWMC will annually review and update its 10-year CIP. The BCWMC will re-evaluate new or proposed additions to the CIP annually or as new data or opportunities develop, with consideration for the criteria outlined in policy 110.

110. The BCWMC will consider including projects in the CIP that meet one or more of the following "gatekeeper" criteria.

* Project is part of the BCWMC trunk system (see Section 2.8.1, Figure 2-14 and Figure 2-15)
* Project improves or protects water quality in priority waterbody
* Project addresses an approved TMDL or watershed restoration and protection strategy (WRAPS)
* Project addresses flooding concern

The BCWMC will use the following criteria, in addition to those listed above, to aid in the prioritization of projects:

* Project protects or restores previous Commission investments in infrastructure
* Project addresses intercommunity drainage issues
* Project addresses erosion and sedimentation issues
* Project will address multiple Commission goals (e.g., water quality, runoff volume, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, recreation, etc.)
* Subwatershed draining to project includes more than one community
* Addresses significant infrastructure or property damage concerns

The BCWMC will place a higher priority on projects that incorporate multiple benefits, and will seek opportunities to incorporate multiple benefits into BCWMC projects, as opportunities allow.

111. The BCWMC defines the trunk system as the collection of waterbodies and natural or constructed conveyances listed in Table 2-9 of this Plan.

112. The BCWMC may review proposed changes to member city development regulations (e.g., zoning and subdivision ordinances) at its discretion or the request of the member cities.

113. Member cities must inform the BCWMC regarding updates to city ordinances or comprehensive plans that will affect stormwater management. Stormwater management elements of the member cities’ comprehensive plans must conform to the BCWMC Plan.

114. The BCWMC will annually assess its progress towards the goals presented in this plan, using quantitative metrics where appropriate. The BCWMC will provide this analysis, or a summary, to BWSR, as as part of its annual reporting.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 938 -->
115. The BCWMC will work with member cities to assess the financial impact of regulatory controls and identify areas where the BCWMC may assist member cities in meeting the requirements of their MS4 permits.

116. The BCWMC will periodically review its capital improvement program (CIP) process and revise the process, as necessary.

117. The BCWMC will assist in calculating or calculate when necessary, the apportionment of costs between adjoining communities for water resource projects with intercommunity participation.

118. The BCWMC will assist member cities in resolving watershed management disputes, as requested. The BCWMC will follow the dispute resolution procedure described in Section 5.1.1.5 of this Plan.

119. The BCWMC will maintain a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to promote communication and cooperation between the BCWMC and member cities. Member cities shall appoint a technical advisor to the TAC and encourage the technical advisor to attend BCWMC meetings.

120. The BCWMC will continue to rely on member cities to implement the BCWMC’s policies at the time of development and redevelopment. Member cities shall inform developers and other project applicants regarding BCWMC requirements.

121. The BCWMC will continue to rely on member cities to issue permits. Member cities shall permit only those projects that conform to the policies and standards of the BCWMC. The BCWMC will review proposed projects after the member city has provided preliminary approval (indicating compliance with the member city’s local water management plan) and submitted a signed BCWMC application form to the BCWMC. Member cities shall not issue construction permits, or other approvals, until the BCWMC has approved the project.

122. For CIP projects that have been ordered by the Commission, the BCWMC requires member cities to acquire and maintain easements, right-of-way, or interest in land necessary to implement and maintain projects upon order of the BCWMC (the cost of land acquisition may be eligible for Commission reimbursement, see Table 5-1).

## Summary of Rules

A synopsis of BCWMC rules is presented below.

### Floodplain Regulations

The following policies regarding floodplain regulation within the Bassett Creek watershed have been adopted:

1. The floodplain of Bassett Creek is defined as that area lying below the 100-year flood elevations as shown in the BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, or as subsequently revised due to channel improvement, storage site development, or requirements established by appropriate state or federal governmental agencies.

2. No land use of a type which would be damaged by flood waters is permitted within the floodplain.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 939 -->
3. Allowable types of land use which are consistent with the floodplain, such as recreation areas, parking lots, excavations and storage areas, agriculture, and other open space uses, would be allowed only to the extent that they would not increase flooding. Permanent storage piles, fences, and other obstructions, which would collect debris or provide restriction to flood flows are not allowed.

4. Filling will generally not be allowed within the floodplain established in the BCWMC Watershed Management Plan. If any municipality desires to fill within the established floodplain, such filling will require the approval of the BCWMC and require provisions for compensating storage and/or channel improvement so that the flood level shall not be increased at any point along the channel due to the fill.

5. Expansion of existing, non-conforming land uses within the floodplain will be prohibited unless they are fully floodproofed in accordance with existing codes and regulations.

## Water Resources Regulations
### Water Quality Management
The lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, and wetlands of the Bassett Creek watershed are an important community asset. These resources supply aesthetic and recreational benefits, in addition to providing wildlife habitat and refuge. The BCWMC recognizes a need to ensure adequate water quality in the waterbodies in its jurisdiction, and has taken steps to protect these resources. The Water Quality Management Policy was adopted to protect, preserve, and manage the water resources in the Bassett Creek watershed.

### Control of Streambank Erosion and Streambank Degradation
Streambank erosion and streambank degradation control measures must:

1. Be employed whenever the ne sediment transport for a reach of stream is greater than zero or whenever the stream's natural tendency to form meanders directly threatens damage to structures, utilities, or natural amenities in public areas.

2. Include effective energy dissipation devices or stilling basins to prevent streambank or channel erosion at all stormwater outfalls.

3. Specify riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitable graded by weight for the anticipated velocities.

4. Provide riprap to an adequate depth below the channel grade and to a height above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that the riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement.

5. Specify that riprap be placed over a suitable graded filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not migrate through the riprap and reduce its stability.

6. Require that streambank stabilization and streambed degradation control structures be submitted for review by the BCWMC. The review will consider the need for the work, the adequacy of design,

<!-- page 940 -->
unique or special site conditions, energy dissipation, the potential for adverse effects, contributing factors, preservation of natural processes, or aesthetics.

### Water Quality Best Management Practices
The Minnesota Stormwater Manual should be used to determine the currently approved water quality BMPs such as bioretention basins, sand filters, infiltration basins, stormwater ponds, tree trench systems, and grit chambers and their design guidance.

### Sediment Control
To protect the water resources of the Bassett Creek watershed from increased sediment and associated water quality problems, the BCWMC has established the following policies to encourage land use planning and development that minimizes sediment yield:

1. Provide specific measures to control erosion based on the grade and length of the slopes onsite.

2. The sedimentation ponds will be cleaned on a regular interval determined by calculating the sediment yield expected from the tributary watershed and comparing it to the capacity of the pond.

3. Preservation and improvement of marsh areas for sediment removal by natural filtration is recommended if the natural intrinsic value of the wetland is not adversely affected.

4. The design of storm sewer, stream channel improvements, and channel crossings must consider temporary erosion and sediment reduction measures to be implemented during construction and permanent measures to eliminate erosion and reduce sediment production during operations.

## Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
15320 Minnetonka Blvd.
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Ph: (952) 471-0590
Fax: (952) 471-0682
http://www.minnehahacreek.org

The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) covers approximately 178 square miles and is home to eight major creeks, 129 lakes, and thousands of wetlands. The MCWD includes all or part of 27 cities and two townships in Hennepin County and Carver County. The MCWD “seeks to conserve the natural resources of the Minnehaha Creek watershed principally through analysis of the causes of harmful impacts on the water resource, public information and education, regulation of land use, regulation of the use of waterbodies and their beds, and capital improvement projects.” The MCWD’s Water Resources Management Plan was adopted in July 2007. It outlines the MCWD’s mission, goals and policies, and implementation plan.

### Summary of Goals
Water resources management goals developed by the MCWD are included in Table E.2.

<!-- page 941 -->
Table E.2 – Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Goals

| Goal | Description |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL 1** | Promote abstraction and filtration of surface water where feasible for the purpose of improving water quality and increasing groundwater recharge throughout the watershed. |
| **GOAL 2** | Promote activities which maintain, support, and enhance floral, faunal quantity, and ecological integrity of upland and aquatic resources throughout the watershed. |
| **GOAL 3** | Conserve, maintain, and improve aesthetic, physical, chemical, and biological composition of surface waters and groundwater within the District. |
| **GOAL 4** | Minimize the risks of threats to public health through the development of programs, plans, and policies that improve the quality of surface and groundwater resources. |
| **GOAL 5** | Maintain or reduce existing flows from drainage within the watershed to decrease the negative effects of stormwater runoff and bounce from existing and proposed development, as well as provide low flow augmentation to surface waters. |
| **GOAL 6** | Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas and minimize degradation of surface water quality which can result from dredging operations. |
| **GOAL 7** | Maintain the hydraulic capacity of and minimize obstruction to navigation without compromising wildlife habitat in water courses and preserve water quality and navigation appearance in shoreland areas. |
| **GOAL 8** | Improve water quality by promoting BMPs requiring their adoption in local plans and their implementation on development sites. |
| **GOAL 9** | Enhance public participation and knowledge regarding District activities and provide information and educational material to municipalities, community groups, businesses, schools, developers, contractors, and individuals. |
| **GOAL 10** | Maintain public ditch systems within the District as required under Statutory jurisdiction. |
| **GOAL 11** | Preserve, create, and restore wetland resource and maximize the benefits and functionality of wetlands to the watershed. |
| **GOAL 12** | Protect and maintain existing groundwater flow, promote groundwater recharge, and improve groundwater quality and aquifer protection. |
| **GOAL 13** | Reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water by preserving and increasing the existing water storage capacity below 100-year flood elevations on all waterbodies within MCWD. |
| **GOAL 14** | Promote the recreational use, where appropriate, of surface waters within MCWD by providing recreation opportunities for citizens by promoting the use and enjoyment of water resources with the intent of increasing the livability and quality of life within the watershed. |
| **GOAL 15** | Control temporary sources of sediment resulting from land disturbance and identify, minimize, and correct the effects of sedimentation from erosion-prone and sediment source areas. |
| **GOAL 16** | Promote effective planning to minimize the impact of development and land use change on water resources, as well as achieve watershed District goals. |
| **GOAL 17** | Solicit input from the general public with the intent that policies, projects, and programs will address local community values and goals, as well as protect historic and cultural values regarding water resources; strive to manage expectations; base decision on an educated public; and, foster an educated and informed public within the watershed. |

*Source: MCWD*

## Summary of Rules

MCWD rules seek to:

*   Protect public health and welfare and the natural resources by reasonable regulation of the modification or alteration of lands and waters on the MCWD.

*   Reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 942 -->
* Preserve floodplains and wetlands.
* Improve the chemical and physical quality of surface water.
* Reduce sedimentation.
* Preserve hydraulic and navigational capacity of waterbodies.
* Preserve natural shoreland features.
* Minimize public expectations to avoid or correct such problems in the future.

A synopsis of the MCWD rules is presented below.

### Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Rule
The MCWD’s Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Rule states that the District will regulate illicit connections and discharges of pollutants into its MS4 system and watercourses in the watershed.

Any new direct connection to or replacement of and existing connection to the District’s MS4 will require obtaining a permit from the District. All illicit connections and illicit discharges into the District’s MS4 system or District watercourses are prohibited.

### Floodplain Alteration Rule
The MCWD’s Floodplain Alteration Rule states that it is the MCWD Board of Managers’ policy to:

* Preserve existing water storage capacity below the 100-year high water elevations on all waterbodies in the watershed to minimize the frequency and severity of high water.
* Minimize development below 100-year high water elevations that will unduly restrict flood flows or aggravate known high water problems.
* Mitigate historical losses in floodplain volume and promote the conservation and restoration of floodplain habitat where feasible.
* Promote uniform and consistent application of floodplain regulation throughout the watershed.
* Promote the natural functions and benefits of floodplains.

The MCWD Board of Managers will conduct the floodplain management program and review all projects proposed within the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain alteration criteria will guide the Board of Managers’ review of developments and redevelopments within the floodplain. Local Stormwater Management Programs (SWMPs) must include floodplain management strategies. The Board of Managers will review these floodplain management strategies for conformity with this rule and will transfer permitting authority for floodplain alterations if local floodplain ordinances conform to MCWD’s Floodplain Alteration Rule.

### Wetland Protection Rule
The MCWD’s Wetland Protection Rule states that it is the policy of the District to:

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 943 -->
* Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota’s existing wetlands.

* Avoid or minimize direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands and rectify the impact of any such activity by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland environment.

* Reduce or eliminate the impact of such activity over time by preservation and maintenance operation during the life of the activity.

* Compensate for the impact on the wetlands by restoring a wetland or replacing or providing substitute wetland resources or environments.

* Promote competent administration of the WCA within the watershed.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) potentially has jurisdiction over all wetlands in Minnesota. The MNDNR, through a USACE/MNDNR general permit, currently has authority to preserve protected waters and wetlands. The wetlands under the MNDNR’s jurisdiction include most types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands as defined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Circular No. 39. The MNDNR requires a permit for changes to a protected water or wetland. BWSR provides administrative guidance over implementation of the WCA of 1991.

The MCWD serves as the LGU for implementing the WCA where LGU authority has not been obtained by a municipality. MCWD Wetland Protection Rule applies to types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 wetlands. It also includes requirements for wetland buffers, restrictions for excavation in wetlands, and for locating replacement wetlands. Local SWMPs must incorporate the requirements of the Wetland Protection Rule or continue to allow the MCWD to regulate wetland protection. In addition, cities shall assess functions and values by utilizing one of several methodologies listed in the WCA Rules. Cities issuing permits for work in and around wetlands will inform the permittee that these activities may also need MNDNR and USACE permits prior to approval of the local permit.

### Stormwater Management Rule
It is the policy of the District to:

* Promote abstraction of precipitation and stormwater runoff where feasible for the purposes of improving water quality, increasing groundwater recharge, reducing flooding, and promoting the health of native and designed plant communities and landscapes.

* Preserve, maintain, and improve the aesthetic, physical, chemical, and biological composition of surface waters and groundwater within the District.

* Limit or reduce stormwater runoff from drainage within the watershed to decrease the negative effects of land-disturbing activities on surface water quality and flooding.

* Protect and maintain existing groundwater flow, promote groundwater recharge, and improve groundwater quality and aquifer protection.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 944 -->
* Promote the preservation and use of native vegetation for stormwater runoff abstraction and pollutant load reduction.

* Promote non-degradation of water quality from new development and improvement in water quality from redevelopment.

* Promote the management of stormwater onsite for the purposes of providing local groundwater recharge and maintaining natural hydrology.

The District’s Stormwater Management Rule covers developments of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway uses. It also covers redevelopment and additions to existing development. It directs permit applicants to apply for a permit and prepare a local stormwater management plan for the individual project. It also directs them to prepare an erosion control plan for construction and land development activities. The MCWD Board of Managers will transfer permit and review authority to communities that have approved stormwater management plans. An approved stormwater management plan will conform to the Stormwater Management Rule and will implement equal or equivalent design criteria for stormwater quantity and quality and require equal or equivalent exhibits. The MCWD Board of Managers will consider any variance requested from these local stormwater management plans.

### Erosion Control Rule

The MCWD Board of Managers requires preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for land-disturbing activities to limit erosion from wind and water, reduce slow volumes and velocities of stormwater moving offsite, reduce sedimentation into waterbodies, and protect soil stability during and after site disturbance. Sediment and erosion control should reflect the following principles:

* Minimize, in area and duration, exposed soil and unstable soil conditions.

* Minimize disturbance of natural soil cover and vegetation.

* Protect receiving waterbodies, wetlands, and storm sewer inlets.

* Retain sediments from disturbed properties onsite.

* Minimize unintentional offsite sediment transport on trucks and equipment.

* Minimize work in and adjacent to waterbodies and wetlands.

* Maintain stable slopes.

* Avoid steep slopes and the need for high cuts and fills.

* Minimize disturbance to the surrounding soils, root systems and trunks of trees, and vegetation adjacent to site activity that are intended to be left standing.

* Prevent and/or mitigate the compaction of site soils.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 945 -->
The MCWD Board of Managers requires cities to adopt the MPCA BMPs and put these into their local SWMP. These BMPs will meet the MCWD Board of Managers’ Erosion and Sedimentation Control policies. MCWD approval of individual local SWMPs will require cities to take responsibility for enforcing erosion and sedimentation control plans for all development and redevelopment sites through their normal permitting procedures. This includes erosion control provisions for small sites associated with building permits, driveway permits, and grading permits.

Local SWMPs must also require documentation that the project has received a NPDES Stormwater Permit from the MPCA (if required by the MPCA). The MCWD Board of Managers policy requires landowners proposing to develop land to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan for all construction activities that remove or disturb existing protective cover. The developer must have city approval of this plan before starting any construction. The SWMP must address sediment containment. The local SWMP must also require establishing permanent vegetative cover as soon as construction is complete. The erosion and sediment control plan must outline the direction of all site runoff and the location of erosion control measures. Structural methods for erosion control may include, but are not limited to, silt fences, hay bale barriers, diversion dikes, and sedimentation basins. The local SWMP shall also require installation of structural measures in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications and accepted MPCA guidelines. Non-structural methods include, but are not limited to, natural plant barriers, phased development practices, and grading practices that minimize slopes. Local SWMPs must require employing these methods in accordance with accepted engineering standards and in accordance with the MPCA BMPs.

The erosion control plan must temporarily and permanently replace plant cover. These practices include, but are not limited to, seeding, mulching, and sodding. Local SWMPs must require proper care of all structural and non-structural erosion control measures that must remain in place until the establishment of permanent plant cover. The MCWD Board of Managers recommends that LGUs obtain a surety to make sure that the developer adequately carries out the plan.

### Shoreline and Streambank Improvements Stabilization Rule
The MCWD Board of Managers adopted shoreline stabilization rules to:

* Preserve and enhance the natural appearance and function of shorelines and streambanks.
* Preserve and enhance wildlife, fisheries, and recreational resources of surface waters.
* Ensure that the surface water quality and ecological integrity of the riparian environment is not compromised because of stabilization practices.
* Assure that improvement of shoreline and streambank areas to prevent erosion complies with accepted engineering principles in conformity with MNDNR construction guidelines.
* Encourage and foster the use of bioengineering, lakescaping, and conservation of natural vegetation as preferred means of stabilizing shorelines and streambanks.
* Discourage the use of beds and banks of waterbodies for the placement of roads, highways, and utilities.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 946 -->
The MCWD Board of Managers encourages cities to adopt and carry out ordinances to protect shoreland. These shoreland ordinances shall address the control of shoreland development as identified in the 1989 MNDNR *Statewide Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas*. The cities have the responsibility to administer and enforce these shoreline management regulations. The MCWD Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization Rule applies to shoreline and streambank improvements. The MCWD Board of Managers may delegate permitting authority for shoreline improvements to the cities if the Board of Managers decides that member cities have either made this rule part of their local shoreline ordinance or their ordinance does the same thing.

### Stream and Lake Crossings Rule
The MCWD Stream and Lake Crossings Rule discourages the use of lake beds and beds of waterbodies for the placement of roads, highways, and utilities. The Rule further lists criteria, which stream and lake crossing projects must meet. Local SWMPs will be reviewed for conformity to the Rule.

# Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
2522 Marshall Street Northeast
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418
Ph: (651) 287-0948
Fax: (651) 287-1308
http://www.mwmo.org

Boundaries of the MWMO include the Mississippi River as it runs through the City of Minneapolis, as well as the land that drains to the river. The MWMO contains portions of the City of Lauderdale, the City of Minneapolis, the City of Saint Anthony, and the City of Saint Paul. The final member of the MWMO is the MPRB. The MWMO provides for the long-term management of its water and associated land resources through the development and implementation of projects, programs, and policies that respect ecosystem principles and reflect changing community values. The MWMO assists and cooperates with member cities, other units of government, non-profit agencies, and a variety of groups in managing its water resources to achieve this vision.

The MWMO adopted its Water Resources Management Plan in 2011 with plan amendments adopted in 2012, 2013, and 2015. The MWMO Plan presents the organization’s missions, its goals and policies, and its priorities for implementation.

The primary purpose of the MWMO Plan is to provide for the wise, long-term management of the water and associated natural resources within the watershed through implementation measures that realize multiple objectives, respect ecosystem principles, and reflect community values.

## Summary of Goals
Water resources management goals developed by the MWMO are included in Table E.3.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 947 -->
### Table E.3 – Mississippi Watershed Management Organization Goals

| Goal | Description |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL 1** | Implement water quality initiatives to protect, maintain, or improve the water quality of the Mississippi River and other water resources within the MWMO. |
| **GOAL 2** | Implement water rate and volume initiatives to protect downstream resources from the impacts of high stormwater runoff volumes, limit the frequency at which flood damage occurs, and reduce the severity and frequency of drought-like conditions. |
| **GOAL 3** | Implement monitoring and data assessment initiatives to assemble the best scientific data to inform water resource decision making and to identify successful implementation of stormwater management practices based on water quality and quantity trends. |
| **GOAL 4** | Implement communication and outreach initiatives to increase citizen awareness of water resource issues and communicate the value of resource stewardship so that citizens action positively impacts MWMO water and natural resources. |
| **GOAL 5** | Implement ecosystem health initiative to protect, create, and enhance vegetated areas, native plant communities, habitat, open space, and public infrastructure. |
| **GOAL 6** | Implement regulations and enforcement initiatives to promote consistency across jurisdictions in the standards, compliance and enforcement of regulations for the protection and improvement of water and natural resources. |
| **GOAL 7** | Implement urban stormwater management initiative to promote unique and effective stormwater solutions to address the highly-developed urban condition of the watershed. |
| **GOAL 8** | Implement emergency preparedness and response initiatives to prepare the MWMO and member organizations to protect water and natural resources in the event of an emergency that threatens the health and function of these resources, and assist them in alleviating damages to resources from emergencies. |
| **GOAL 9** | Implement emerging issues initiatives that will both develop awareness of and address changing conditions to protect water and natural resources. |
| **GOAL 10** | Implement financial responsibilities and strategy initiative that will fund the protection and improvement of the quality and quantity of water and natural resources through effective, transparent, and responsible utilization and leveraging of funds. |

Source: MWMO

### Summary of Rules

The MWMO does not issue permits or provide approval letters for construction projects. Instead, it relies on the existing permitting and enforcement bodies of its member cities. The MWMO Board reserves the right to review and comment on plans that affect the quality and quantity of water within and across its watershed and subwatershed boundaries. Local governments are responsible for:

*   Maintaining existing and proposed storm drain conveyance systems, including stormwater detention ponds, sewers, and inlet and outlet drainage structures.
*   Issuing building and grading permits.
*   Performing inspections to ensure compliance during construction.

The MWMO maintains oversight responsibility to monitor local SWMP implementation. If member cities do not follow their approved SWMPs, the MWMO will enforce its standards and rules.

### Erosion and Sediment Control

The member communities of the MWMO shall adopt and implement erosion and sediment control standards or ordinances to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Member cities shall also follow the BMPs

<!-- page 948 -->
described in the MPCA document, *Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas*, or other such documents created by member cities to achieve no adverse impact to receiving waterbodies. Construction activities, including redevelopment, utility installation, and road construction, are required to obtain a NPDES Construction Permit from the MPCA in addition to local permitting requirements.

## Shoreline and Floodplain

The MWMO requires its member cities to have on file both a MNDNR approved Floodplain Ordinance and a MNDNR approved Shoreline Ordinance. Where no ordinance is applicable< MWMO requires there be no encroachment on floodways that reduces capacities or expedites flood flows. It is also MWMO policy to allow in the flood zone only those structures that have been protected from high water, either through floodproofing or by other construction techniques recognized and accepted by the MWMO Board.

## Land Use

Although specific zoning and land use planning remains with the individual cities, the MWMO urges its member cities to regulate any activities that may cause contamination of surface and groundwater through restrictive permitting, zoning, and licensing.

## Stormwater and Drainage Design Performance

The MWMO requires all its member cities to develop stormwater management ordinances that address the following requirements:

*   Reduce runoff through coordinated efforts of state and local agencies.
*   Update development and enforcement standards for major new construction and redevelopment projects.
*   Promote increased stormwater retention in new construction and redevelopment projects.

## Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission

3235 Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
Ph: (763) 553-1144
Fax: (763) 553-9326
http://www.shinglecreek.org/

The Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed covers approximately 67 square miles in east-central Hennepin County. There are ten cities in this watershed, and they jointly manage the water resources in this area through the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. The Commissions work jointly for those communities that are members of both the SCWMC and the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission. The goal of the Commissions is to enhance the water quality of the water resources within their watersheds through public education, analysis of the causes of harmful impacts, regulation of the use of waterbodies, regulation of land use, and capital improvement projects.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 949 -->
The Commissions adopted their First Generation Management Plan in 1990, their Second Generation Plan in 2004, and their Third Generation Plan in 2013.

The SCWMC Plan includes: an updated land and water resources inventory; goals and policies in eight specific areas; an assessment of problems and identification of corrective actions; an implementation program; and, a process for amending the Plan. It describes how the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions will address activities in the two watersheds in the ten-year period.

## Summary of Goals

Water resources management goals developed by SCWMC are included in Table E.4.

**Table E.4 – Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Goals**

| Goal | Description |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL 1** | Maintain the existing 100-year flood profile throughout the watersheds. |
| **GOAL 2** | Determine ecological low flows for Shingle Creek and Bass Creek. |
| **GOAL 3** | As lake water quality improves, and lakes are removed from the State’s Impaired Waters List, implement management strategies to protect lake water quality. It is anticipated that Schmidt Lake, Lower Twin Lake, and Ryan Lake will be removed in 2014. |
| **GOAL 4** | Implement phosphorus and sediment load reduction actions sufficient to achieve de-listing from the Impaired Waters List for Bass Lake, Eagle Lake, Crystal Lake, and the Middle Twin Lakes. |
| **GOAL 5** | Improve water clarity in the balance of the lakes by 10 percent over the average of the previous ten years. |
| **GOAL 6** | Improve at least 30 percent of the length of Shingle Creek to meet Corridor Study and TMDL design standards. |
| **GOAL 7** | Maintain non-degradation of all waterbodies compared to 1985 conditions. |
| **GOAL 8** | Infiltrate stormwater runoff from new impervious surface. |
| **GOAL 9** | Identify opportunities for and implement projects to infiltrate runoff from existing impervious surface. |
| **GOAL 10** | Work with the appropriate state agencies to incorporate groundwater assessment into the sustainable water budget analysis for each watershed. |
| **GOAL 11** | Maintain the existing functions and values of wetlands identified in the Commission’s Water Quality Plan as high priority. |
| **GOAL 12** | Informed by the sustainable water budget study, improve functions and values of wetlands. |
| **GOAL 13** | Continue current Hennepin County jurisdiction over County Ditch #13. |
| **GOAL 14** | Identify and operate within a sustainable funding level that is affordable to member cities. |
| **GOAL 15** | Foster implementation of TMDL and other implementation projects by sharing in their cost and proactively seeking grant funds. |
| **GOAL 16** | Operate a public education outreach program that meets the NPDES Phase II education requirements for the member cities. |
| **GOAL 17** | Operate a monitoring program sufficient to characterize water quantity, water quality, and biotic integrity in the watersheds and to evaluate progress toward meeting TMDL goals. |
| **GOAL 18** | Maintain rules and standards for development and redevelopment that are consistent with local and regional TMDLs, federal guidelines, source water and wellhead protection requirements, sustainable water yields, non-degradation, and ecosystem management goals. |
| **GOAL 19** | Serve as a technical resource for member cities. |

Source: SCWMC

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 950 -->
## Summary of Rules

SCWMC rules and standards protect the public health, welfare, and natural resources of the watershed by regulating the improvement or alteration of land and waters in the watershed to:

*   Reduce the severity and frequency of high water.
*   Preserve floodplain and wetland storage capacity.
*   Improve the chemical and physical quality of surface waters.
*   Reduce sedimentation.
*   Preserve the hydraulic and navigational capacities of waterbodies.
*   Promote and preserve natural infiltration areas.
*   Preserve natural shoreline features.

In addition to protecting natural resources, these rules and standards are intended to minimize future public expenditures on problems caused by the improvement or land and water alterations. A synopsis of SCWMC rules is presented below.

### General Standards

*   All land-disturbing activities, whether requiring a project review under SCWMC rules or otherwise, shall be undertaken in conformance with BMPs and in compliance with the standards and criteria in the SCWMC rules.
*   SCWMC project reviews are required of: any single-family, detached housing project 15 acres or larger in size; projects in any other land use such as commercial, industrial, or institutional 5 acres or larger in size; and, any land-disturbing activity requested by a member city to be reviewed regardless of project size. Projects smaller in size are reviewed by municipalities.
*   No personal shall conduct land-disturbing activities without protecting adjacent property and waterbodies from erosion, sedimentation, flooding, or other damage.
*   Development shall be planned and conducted to minimize the extent of disturbed area, runoff velocities, and erosion potential, and to reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment onsite.
*   When possible, existing natural watercourses and vegetated soil surfaces shall be used to convey, store, filter, and retain runoff before discharge into public waters or a stormwater conveyance system.
*   When possible, runoff from roof gutter systems shall discharge onto lawns or other pervious surfaces to promote infiltration.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 951 -->
* Use of fertilizers and pesticides in the shoreland protection zone shall be done to minimize runoff into public waters using earth material, vegetation, or both. No phosphorus fertilizer shall be used unless a soil nutrient analysis shows a need for phosphorus or in the establishment of new turf.

* When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. The SCWMC encourages designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pies and man-made materials and facilities.

* Whenever the SCWMC determines that any land-disturbing activity has become a hazard to any person, endangers the property of another, adversely affects water quality of any waterbody, increases flooding, or otherwise violated SCWMC rules, the SCWMC shall notify the member city where the problem occurs and the member city shall require the owner of the land upon which the land-disturbing activity is located, or other person or agent in control of such land, to repair or eliminate such condition within the time period specified therein. The owner of the land upon which a land disturbing activity is located shall be responsible for the cleanup and any damages from sediment that has eroded from such land. The SCWMC may require the owner to submit a project review application under SCWMC rules before undertaking any repairs or restoration.

### Stormwater Management
No person or political subdivision shall commence a land-disturbing activity or the development or redevelopment of land for the following types of projects without first submitting to and obtaining approval of a project review from the SCWMC or member city that incorporates a stormwater management plan for this activity, development, or redevelopment:

* Plans of any land development or site development of 1 acre or larger for single-family detached housing use and 0.5 acres or larger for all other land uses.

* Plans of any land development or individual site development adjacent to or within a lake, wetland, or a natural or altered watercourse, as listed in the final inventory of Protected Waters and Wetlands for Hennepin County, as prepared by the MNDNR.

* Plans for any land development or site development within the 100-year floodplain, as defined by the Flood Insurance Study for the member city.

* Plans of any land development or site development regardless of size, if such review is requested by a member city.

* Single-family developments of more than 15 acres that drain to more than one watershed, for that portion of the site draining into Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed.

* Linear projects that create one acre or more of new impervious surface.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 952 -->
### Erosion and Sediment Control

No person or political subdivision shall commence a land-disturbing activity or the development or redevelopment of land for: any single-family detached housing project 15 acres or larger in size; projects in any other land use such as commercial, industrial, or institutional 5 acres or larger in size; linear projects that create one acre or more of new impervious surface; or, any land-disturbing activity requested by a member city to be reviewed regardless of project size without first submitting to and obtaining approval of a project review from the SCWMC that incorporates an erosion and sediment control plan for the activity, development, or redevelopment.

### Floodplain Alteration

No person or political subdivision shall alter or fill land below the 100-year critical flood elevation of any public waters, public waters wetland, or other wetland without first obtaining an approved project review from the SCWMC.

### Wetland Alteration

No person or political subdivision shall drain, fill, excavate, or otherwise alter a wetland without first obtaining the approval of a wetland replacement plan from the LGU with jurisdiction over the activity.

### Bridge and Culvert Crossings

No person or political subdivision shall construct or improve a road or utility crossing across Shingle Creek or any watercourse with a tributary area more than 100 acres without first submitting to the SCWMC and receiving approval of a project review.

### Buffer Strips

No person or political subdivision shall commence a land-disturbing activity or the development or redevelopment of land for: any single-family detached housing project 15 acres or larger in size; projects in any other land use such as commercial, industrial, or institutional 5 acres or larger in size; any land-disturbing activity requested by a member city to be reviewed regardless of project size; or, on land that contains or is adjacent to a watercourse or wetland without first submitting to and obtaining approval of a project review from the SCWMC that incorporates a vegetated buffer strip between the development or redevelopment and the watercourse or wetland.

<!-- page 953 -->
# Appendix E – Monitoring and Assessment Reports: Minneapolis Water Resources

<!-- page 954 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 955 -->
The following tables contain an inventory of water quality reports and studies for City of Minneapolis (City) water resources. The information is organized according to stream or lake name. Titles and time of publication of reports to each stream or lake are listed long with the organization responsible for their authorship and a brief description. Lakes and streams in the City that are not contained in this inventory have no monitoring data or assessment studies. Stormwater or Stormwater Management Practices (SMP) studies are contained within the inventory of that study’s tributary water resource. All information has been collected by public organizations, including: the City; the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB); Federal, state, and regional governments; and, non-profit organizations. Privately collected data and studies are not included in this inventory. The primary focus of this inventory is to present data that has been published and assessed. This inventory does not include data that has been collected but has not been assessed and summarized into a publication. A full range of monitoring data is available through a waterbody search on the MPCA Environmental Data webpage and the Metropolitan Council’s Key Water Information Catalogue.

The organizations responsible for these publications include:

*   Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)
*   Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB)
*   Minneapolis Public Works (MPW)
*   Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
*   Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
*   Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
*   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
*   Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO)
*   Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)
*   Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC)
*   United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
*   United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
*   United States Geological Survey (USGS)
*   Volunteer Stream Monitoring Partnership (VSMP)

<!-- page 956 -->
### Bassett Creek

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Bassett Stormwater Monitoring Study (1992) | BCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment Report | |
| A Biotic Index Evaluation of Bassett Creek and Plymouth Creek (1995, 2000, 2012, 2015) | BCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Summary of macroinvertebrate monitoring. Study analyzed the water quality using biotic indices. |
| Watershed Outlet Monitoring (1998-Ongoing) | MPRB, Metropolitan Council, MCWD, BCWMC | Monitoring Activity | Flow monitoring and water quality sampling. |
| 2003 and 2004 Water Quality Study of Wirth Lake (MPRB) and Bassett Creek (2003, 2004) | BCWMC | Studies and Reports | |
| Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL and Protection Plan (2004) | BCWMC, MPCA, EPA | TMDL Study | Main stem of Bassett Creek TMDL analysis included in the Upper Mississippi plan. |
| Bassett Creek E. coli Bacteria Monitoring (2010) | BCWMC, Barr Engineering | Monitoring and Assessment Memorandum | Water samples were collected to analyze Bassett Creek for E. coli. |
| Comprehensive Water Quality Assessment of Select Metropolitan Area Streams (2014) | Metropolitan Council | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Water quality assessment of monitored streams. Provides average annual concentrations of total suspended solids, total phosphorus, nitrate, and chloride from 2003-2012. |
| Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan (2016) | BCWMC, MPCA, EPA | TMDL Implementation Plan | Set goals for reduction in bacteria load to meet waste load allocations. |
| Macroinvertebrate Surveys (Ongoing) | River Watch, VSMP, BCWMC, MCWD, SCWMC | Survey and Assessment | Completed by trained volunteers. Also includes Minnehaha Creek and Shingle Creek. |
| Water Quality Monitoring Report (2015, 2016) | MDA | Monitoring | Annual pesticide monitoring of groundwater and surface water at select locations in Minnesota. Bassett Creek sampled from 2006 through 2016 at Irving Avenue North. |

### Brownie Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |
| Water Quality Report (2015) | MCWD | Report | Total phosphorus in the Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed increased due to heavy precipitation. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 957 -->
### Cedar Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Green Report (1993) | Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee | Report | Evaluated Chain of Lakes and recommended preservation action. |
| Constructed Wetlands Monitoring for Pollutant Removal and Performance Assessment (1999-2001) | MPRB, Metropolitan Council | Monitoring Activity | ▪ Cedar Meadows<br>▪ SENA wetland<br>▪ Lake Harriet subsurface flow wetland |
| Chain of Lakes Alum-Macrophyte Interaction (2002) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Study conducted to investigate and document the efficiency of alum treatment in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, Lake Harriet, and Lake of the Isles |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MRPB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |
| Water Quality Monitoring Report (2015, 2016) | MDA | Monitoring | Annual pesticide monitoring of groundwater and surface water at select locations in Minnesota. Cedar Lake monitored in 2008. |

### Crystal Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| TMDL Study (2009) | SCWMC, MPCA | TMDL Study | Listed for excess phosphorus concentration. |
| TMDL Implementation Plan (2009) | MPCA | TMDL Implementation Plan | Introduces an implementation plan to reduce average phosphorus loading by 72 percent. |
| Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (Ongoing) | SCWMC, Metropolitan Council | Monitoring and Assessment | Monitoring conducted bi-weekly by citizen volunteers. |
| Crystal Lake Nutrient TMDL Five Year Review (2017) | SCWMC | Report | Review of completed implementation actions and progress toward meeting TMDL load reductions and other goals. |
| Annual Water Quality Report (Ongoing) | SCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment | Water quality, fish, and aquatic vegetation monitoring conducted periodically by Commission technical staff. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 958 -->
### Diamond Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Diamond Lake Management Plan (2009) | MPRB, Friends of Diamond Lake | Assessment | Includes history of Diamond Lake, monitoring information, and recommended actions to improve habitat and water quality. |
| Diamond Lake Watershed Monitoring and Modeling Project (2009) | MnDOT | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Evaluation of pollutant loading and its effect on water quality in Diamond Lake. Measured metals in stormwater runoff and looked at treatment efficiency of Lake Mead Stormwater Pond. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<ul><li>Physical, biological, and chemical parameters</li><li>Lake level</li><li>Phytoplankton and zooplankton</li><li>Trophic state index</li><li>Winter ice cover</li><li>Aquatic plants</li><li>Fish</li><li>Zebra mussels</li></ul> |

### Grass Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MPRB Sampling Program (2002) | MPRB | Survey and Assessment | Water samples were collected to analyze water quality. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<ul><li>Physical, biological, and chemical parameters</li><li>Lake level</li><li>Phytoplankton and zooplankton</li><li>Trophic state index</li><li>Winter ice cover</li><li>Aquatic plants</li><li>Fish</li><li>Zebra mussels</li></ul> |

### Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Green Report (1993) | Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee | Report | Evaluated Chain of Lakes and recommended preservation actions. |
| Calhoun Wetland Pond Performance Report (1999) | MCWD | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Monitored flow in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska and three tributary ponds to document pollutant removal. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 959 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| TMDL (2007-Ongoing) | MPCA | TMDL Study | Statewide TMDL approved for mercury in fish tissue. |
| Chain of Lakes Alum-Macrophyte Interaction Assessment (2002) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Study conducted to investigate and document the efficiency of alum treatment in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, Lake Harriet, Cedar Lake, and Lake of the Isles |
| Water Resources Report (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including: <ul><li>Physical, biological, and chemical parameters</li><li>Lake level</li><li>Phytoplankton and zooplankton</li><li>Trophic state index</li><li>Winter ice cover</li><li>Aquatic plants</li><li>Fish</li><li>Zebra mussels</li></ul> |
| PFOS Monitoring (2014-2016) | MPCA | Monitoring | PFOS impairment addressed through regulatory action rather than a TMDL study. |

### Lake Harriet

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Pesticide Study: Lake Harriet Watershed Site 1 (1992-1995) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Water and street sweeping samples were taken and analyzed for pesticides. |
| Green Report (1993) | Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee | Report | Evaluated Chain of Lakes and recommended preservation actions. |
| Constructed Wetlands Monitoring for Pollutant Removal and Performance Assessment (1999-2001) | MPRB, Metropolitan Council | Monitoring Activity | <ul><li>Cedar Meadows</li><li>SENA wetland</li><li>Lake Harriet subsurface flow wetland</li></ul> |
| Chain of Lakes Alum-Macrophyte Interaction Assessment (2002) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Study conducted to investigate and document the efficiency of alum treatment in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, Lake Harriet, Cedar Lake, and Lake of the Isles. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Repot | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including: <ul><li>Physical, biological, and chemical parameters</li><li>Lake level</li><li>Phytoplankton and zooplankton</li><li>Trophic state index</li><li>Winter ice cover</li><li>Aquatic plants</li><li>Fish</li><li>Zebra mussels</li></ul> |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 960 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Water Quality Monitoring Report (2015, 2016) | MDA | Monitoring | Annual pesticide monitoring of groundwater and surface water at select locations in Minnesota. Lake Harriet monitored in 208 and 2010. |

### Lake Hiawatha

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Report and Recommendations for the Management of Lake Nokomis and Lake Hiawatha (1998) | Blue Water Commission | Assessment and Report | Contains concerns and recommended solutions regarding the water quality of Lake Nokomis and Lake Hiawatha. It found that the lakes were eutrophic. |
| Lake Hiawatha and Minnehaha Creek Fish Survey (2009) | MCWD | Survey | Conducted at four sites along the 22-mile Minnehaha Creek corridor. Found that black bullheads, carp, dogfish, and white suckers were the most common species. Low-oxygen tolerant species dominated, likely having adverse effects on water quality. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |
| Minnehaha Creek E. Coli Bacteria/Lake Hiawatha Nutrients TMDL (2013) | EPA | TMDL Plan | Part of the Minnehaha Creek *E. coli* Bacteria Study. |

### Lake of the Isles

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Green Report (1993) | Water Quality Management Citizen Advisory Committee | Report | Evaluated Chain of Lakes and recommended preservation actions |
| Chain of Lakes Alum-Macrophyte Interaction Assessment (2002) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Study conducted to investigate and document the efficiency of alum treatment in Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska, Lake Harriet, Cedar Lake, and Lake of the Isles. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 961 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | | ▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |

### Lake Nokomis

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Report and Recommendations for the Management of Lake Nokomis and Lake Hiawatha (1998) | Blue Water Commission | Assessment and Report | Contains concerns and recommended solutions regarding the water quality of Lake Nokomis and Lake Hiawatha. It found that the lakes were eutrophic. |
| Minnehaha Creek Watershed Lakes (2011) | MCWD, MPCA, EPA | TMDL Study | Excess nutrient TMDL study, currently in implementation. Lake Nokomis was part of the overall Minnehaha Creek Watershed Lakes analysis. |
| Biomanipulation Study (2010-2013) | MCWD | Study and Improvement | Management of lake fish population. Succeeded in increasing the walleye population, reducing the black bullhead and blue gill populations, and observing an increase of the population of native aquatic plants. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |
| Phosphorus Reduction Plan (2016) | MCWD | TMDL Implementation Plan | Focuses on redevelopment and retrofits on private property to reduce nutrient loading. |
| Water Quality Monitoring Report (2015, 2016) | MDA | Monitoring | Annual pesticide monitoring of groundwater and surface water at select locations in Minnesota. Lake Nokomis monitored in 20017 and 2012. |

### Loring Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 962 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | | ▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |

### Minnehaha Creek

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Macroinvertebrate Surveys (Ongoing) | River Watch, VSMP, BCWMC, MCWD, SCWMC | Survey and Assessment | Completed by trained volunteers. Also includes Bassett Creek and Shingle Creek. Monitoring goal is to provide conditions necessary to support a healthy macroinvertebrate community. |
| Monitoring of Flows and Water Levels at Hiawatha Avenue (Ongoing) | MCWD, USGS | Monitoring | Real time data available at the USGS National Water Information System: Web Interface station 05289200. |
| Watershed Outlet Monitoring (1998-2013) | MPRB, Metropolitan Council, MCWD, BCWMC | Monitoring Activity | Flow monitoring and water quality sampling. Also completed at Bassett Creek. |
| Minnehaha Creek Monitoring Information (2001) | Metropolitan Council | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Monitoring of stream flow and macroinvertebrate populations. Water samples also analyzed. |
| Constructed Wetlands Monitoring for Pollutant Removal and Performance Assessment (1999-2001) | MPRB, Metropolitan Council | Monitoring Activity | ▪ Cedar Meadows<br>▪ SENA wetland<br>▪ Lake Harriet subsurface flow wetland |
| Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Study (2003) | MCWD | Study | Documentation and quantification of the watershed’s hydrologic and hydraulic properties. Identifies existing water management issues resulting from current and past land uses, defines the impact of future land use changes, and recommends how MCWD can address these changes. |
| Minnehaha Creek Visioning Partnership Final Report (2005) | MCWD, USACE | Report | Recommendations for future management of the Creek. Erosion control and support of aquatic life were the highest priorities for improvement. |
| Lake Hiawatha and Minnehaha Creek Fish Survey (2009) | MCWD | Survey | Conducted at four sites along the 22-mile Minnehaha Creek corridor. Found that black bullheads, carp, dogfish, and white suckers were the most common species. Low-oxygen tolerant species dominated, likely having adverse effects on water quality. |
| Comprehensive Water Quality Assessment of Select | Metropolitan Council | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Water quality assessment of monitored streams. Provides information on pollutants, trend |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 963 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Metropolitan Area Streams (2014) | | | analysis, and macroinvertebrate assessment. |
| Minnehaha Creek E. Coli Bacteria/Lake Hiawatha Nutrients TMDL (2013) | EPA | TMDL Plan | Described E. coli exceedance and strategies to manage the bacteria. |
| Minnehaha Creek Base Flow Study | MCWD, MWMO, University of Minnesota | Monitoring | Study of the hydrology in the Minnehaha Creek watershed. Seeks an understanding of what portion of the Creek's water is sourced from Lake Minnetonka, stormwater, and groundwater and to track changes over time. Aims to prevent dry period by increasing base flow. |
| Zebra Mussel Monitoring (Ongoing) | MCWD | Monitoring | Tracking the presence of zebra mussels. |
| Ecosystem Evaluation Program (E-Grade, Under Development) | MCWD | Monitoring and Assessment | Evaluated watershed ecosystems to determine the overall health of the system. |
| Water Quality Monitoring Report (2015, 2016) | MDA | Monitoring | Annual pesticide monitoring of groundwater and surface water at select locations in Minnesota. Minnehaha Creek sampled from 2006 through 2016 at 32[^nd] Avenue South. |

### Mississippi River

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Mississippi Watershed Management Organization Monitoring Program (Ongoing) | MWMO | Monitoring Activity | Monitoring at eight locations along the Mississippi River, five stormwater outfalls, and Loring Pond. Monitors for fecal coliform, and E. coli at all points. Also monitors various physical and chemical parameters at the stormwater outfalls. |
| Upper Mississippi (1994-Ongoing) | USGS | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Monitoring to describe the status of, and trends in, the quality of the nation's streams and rivers. |
| Environmental Pool Plans- Mississippi River Pools 1-10 (2004) | USACE | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | Highlighted the areas of habitats and specific habitat features that should be preserved along the River. |
| Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL and Protection Plan (2004) | MPCA, EPA | TMDL Study | Summarized the impaired reaches of the Mississippi River and the plan for protecting these areas. |
| Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan (2016) | MPCA, EPA | TMDL Implementation Plan | Sets goals for reduction in bacteria load to meet waste load allocations. |
| Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards Draft Technical Support Document for Total Suspended Solids (2011) | MPCA | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | Assessed the turbidity and suspended solids water quality standards along the Mississippi River. |
| Mississippi River Pools 1 through 8: Developing River, | MPCA | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Assessed each pool of the Mississippi River to refine the eutrophication status for each pool |

<!-- page 964 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Pool, and Lake Pepin Eutrophication Criteria (2012) | | | and to establish water quality criteria. |
| Lock and Dam #1 Sample Analysis (Ongoing) | Metropolitan Council | Monitoring and Assessment | Samples are collected at Lock and Dam #1 and analyzed on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis based on the parameter being analyzed. |
| Macroinvertebrate Monitoring (1996-Ongoing) | SCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | Macroinvertebrate study that assessed the health of Shingle Creek. The study was conducted to understand the effects of changes in the urban environment on both Shingle Creek and the Mississippi River. |
| Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report (2013) | MPCA | Monitoring and Assessment | Demonstrates that the watershed is exhibiting signs of pollution including nutrients, bacteria, and suspended solids. |
| South Metro Mississippi River Total Suspended Solids Total Maximum Daily Load (October 2015) | MPCA | TMDL Study | Concludes that municipalities upstream of Lock and Dam #1 are not required to implement additional actions to reduce the load of total suspended solids related to stormwater discharges. |

### Powderhorn Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Powderhorn Park Restoration Project (Diagnostic Study and Implementation Plan) (1999) | MPRB, MPW | Survey and Assessment | Assessment of lake and development of a work plan that led to many of the Powderhorn Lake Improvements. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |

### Ryan Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Ryan Lake TMDL Study (2007) | SCWMC, MPCA, EPA | Survey and Assessment | Monitoring information for Ryan Lake. Created an implementation plan with the goal of reducing phosphorus loading. |
| Water Resources Report (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results of monitoring data, including: |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 965 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | | ▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |
| Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL Five Year Review (2014) | SCWMC | Report | Annual Water Quality Report (ongoing). |
| Annual Water Quality Report (Ongoing) | SCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment | Water quality, fish, and aquatic vegetation monitoring conducted periodically by Commission technical staff. |

### Shingle Creek

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Shingle Creek Water Quality Data (1995) | USGS | Studies and Reports | Trace elements were analyzed in streambed sediment and fish tissue as a part of the National Water Quality Assessment Program. |
| Shingle Creek TMDL (1996) | USGS | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | USGS collected chemical and biological samples in Shingle Creek as part of the National Water Quality Assessment Program. |
| Shingle Creek Flow and Water Quality Data (1996-Ongoing) | USGS, MNDNR | Studies and Reports | Real time data available at USGS Water Resources web interface for site USGS 05288105. |
| Stream Monitoring Program (1996-Ongoing) | SCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | Samples are collected from March to November and analyzed for total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, volatile suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, and chloride. |
| Macroinvertebrate Monitoring (1996-Ongoing) | SCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | Macroinvertebrate study to assess the health of Shingle Creek. The study is important to understand the effects of changes in the urban environment on both Shingle Creek and the Mississippi River. |
| Rapid Bioassessment Sampling (1996, updated 1997) | SCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | Biological sampling and habitat assessment was conducted to analyze invertebrate community abundance and diversity. |
| Shingle Creek Channel Profile (1998) | SCWMC | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | A profile survey and an inspection of Shingle Creek was performed, noting erosion, blockages, bank failures, and the need for repairs. |
| Shingle Creek Natural Area Management Plan (2002) | MPRB | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | An ecological inventory, stream analysis, and trails and interpretive opportunities assessment. Potential areas for recreation and |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 966 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | | management strategies were identified and recommendations made for stream and trail improvements. |
| Upper Mississippi River Bacterial TMDL and Protection Plan (2014) | MPCA | TMDL Report | Study included monitoring station on Shingle Creek at 45[^th] Avenue North. |
| Shingle Creek Chloride (2005) | SCWMC | Survey and Assessment | Spatial extent, persistence, and severity of chloride exceedances; identification and quantification of the sources of chloride in Shingle Creek including point and non-point sources; allocation of Shingle Creek's assimilative capacity to both point and non-point sources; and, development of safety margins protective of State water quality standards. |
| Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Report (2007) | SCWMC, EPA, Hennepin County, MnDOT | TMDL Report | Report of the results of the Shingle Creek chloride TMDL study. Recommendations for reducing chloride loads into Shingle Creek. |
| Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Report (2007) | SCWMC, MPCA, Hennepin County, MnDOT | TMDL Implementation Plan | Recommendations for reducing chloride loads into Shingle Creek. |
| Shingle Creek and Bass Creek Biota and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL (2011) | SCWMC, MPCA | TMDL Study | Identified low oxygen levels in Shingle Creek as the likely cause of biotic integrity of both streams. Recommendations on how to increase dissolved oxygen levels. |
| Shingle Creek and Bass Creek Biota and Dissolved Oxygen Implementation Plan (2012) | SCWMC, MPCA | TMDL Implementation Plan | Recommendations on how to achieve the goals of the TMDL study are explored in depth. |
| Upper Mississippi River Bacterial TMDL Implementation Plan (2016) | SCWMC, MPCA | TMDL Implementation Plan | Recommendations for reaching the TMDL goals. |
| Macroinvertebrate Surveys (Ongoing) | Hennepin County, SCWMC | Survey and Assessment | Completed by trained volunteers. |
| Water Quality Monitoring Report (2015, 2016) | MDA | Monitoring | Annual pesticide monitoring of groundwater and surface water at select locations in Minnesota. Shingle Creek sampled in 2010 at 45[^th] Avenue North. |

### Silver Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Excess Nutrients TMDL (2010, updated 2012) | RCWD, MPCA, EPA | TMDL Report | Identified phosphorus as the nutrient of particular concern. An implementation strategy was created to reduce both this watershed load and internal load of phosphorus in Silver Lake. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 967 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Excess Nutrients TMDL Implementation Plan (2011) | RCWD, MPCA, EPA | TMDL Implementation Plan | Recommendations for reaching nutrient loading goals. |

### Spring Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results on monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Fish stocking<br>▪ Aquatic plant survey (2012 report)<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Beach monitoring<br>▪ Chlorophyll-a<br>▪ Total phosphorus<br>▪ Secchi depth |

### Wirth Lake

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Wirth Lake Watershed and Lake Management Plan (1996) | BCWMC | Management Plan | Establishes guidelines for meeting water quality goals set for Wirth Lake. The focus is on reducing phosphorus loading to the lake. |
| 2003 and 2004 Water Quality Study of Wirth Lake (MPRB) and Bassett Creek (2003 and 2004) | BCWMC | Studies and Reports | |
| Excess Nutrients TMDL (2010) | BCWMC, MPCA, EPA | TMDL Study | Listed as an impaired waterbody in 2002 for excess phosphorus. De-listed in 2014. The study was conducted to improve water quality. Phosphorus was determined to be the primary nutrient affecting water quality. |
| Excess Nutrients TMDL Implementation Plan (2010) | BCWMC, MPCA, EPA | TMDL Implementation Plan | Identified sources of phosphorus and suggested ways to reduce phosphorus loading. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Yearly reports summarizing results on monitoring data, including:<br>▪ Physical, biological, and chemical parameters<br>▪ Lake level<br>▪ Phytoplankton and zooplankton<br>▪ Trophic state index<br>▪ Winter ice cover<br>▪ Aquatic plants<br>▪ Fish<br>▪ Zebra mussels |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 968 -->
### Citywide

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Surface Water Quality Monitoring in the City of Minneapolis | MPW, MPRB | Report | Overview of surface water monitoring efforts and resulting publications over time in the City. |
| Study of Lake Water Quality of the 145 Metropolitan Lakes (1980-Ongoing) | Metropolitan Council | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Summarizes the results of the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program. Samples are collected from mid-April through mid-October and analyzed for a total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and chlorophyll-a. |
| Citizens Lake Monitoring Program (1996-Ongoing) | MPCA | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Volunteer monitoring of lake water quality. |
| Flood Report (1997) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Recommendations of the Public Works, Sewer Design Division for flood mitigation in 39 discrete problem areas in the City. |
| Citizen Stream – Monitoring Program (1998-2003) | MPCA | Monitoring and Assessment Report | Volunteers completed transparency readings and recreational suitability rankings. |
| Stormwater BMP Monitoring (2002-Ongoing) | MPRB, MPW | Monitoring Activity | Inlet and outlet pipe discharge monitoring for total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total dissolved phosphorus, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and other. |
| Aquatic Resource Assessment (2003) | Metropolitan Council | Monitoring and Assessment Reports | Report consisted of a GIS-based assessment to evaluate selected physical, biological, and cultural indicators for surface water resources in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. |
| Water Resources Reports (Annual) | MPRB | Monitoring Report | Four stormwater sites in the City were monitored in order to characterize the pollutant load of runoff from small areas representing various types of land use. The monitoring is performed as a requirement of an NPDES MS4 permit. |
| Summary of NPDES Monitoring (2003-2004) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Five sites in the City and St. Paul were monitored for runoff and water quality between March and November as part of the NPDES Phase I requirements. |
| 2003 and 2004 Grit Chamber Monitoring (2003, 2004) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Monitored 96 grit chambers and concluded that the concentrations leaving the chamber were higher than those coming in, a conclusion indicating that more frequent cleaning of the chamber may be required. |
| Weather Summary – Annual Report (2003, 2004) | MPRB | Studies and Reports | Data was recorded from three tipping buckets, rain gages in the City. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 969 -->
| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Results Minneapolis, Healthy Lakes, Rivers and Streams (2006) | Minneapolis | Report | Report on progress towards longterm water quality goals. |
| Wetland Health Evaluation (Annual) | Hennepin County | Monitoring Activities | Annual monitoring of various wetlands in Hennepin County. List of wetlands may change each year. |

### SCWMC

| Report Name/Date | Agency Responsible | Type of Study | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Regional Pond Investigation | SCWMC | Report | Identified subwatersheds with little or no water treatment facilities. |

<!-- page 970 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 971 -->
# Lift Station 01

<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use* |
| 01 | 46 | 105 | 105 |

* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| 01 | 1454 E 60th St | 1 | Flygt 3101-432 | 5 | 450 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |
| 01 | 1454 E 60th St | 2 | Flygt 3101-432 | 5 | 450 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 972 -->
<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use* |
| 02 | 34 | 109 | 109 |

\* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.

<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 02 | 3123 W 29th St (Inside Private Enterance) | 1 | Flygt 3126 | 9.4 | 400 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |
| 02 | 3123 W 29th St (Inside Private Enterance) | 2 | Flygt 3126 | 9.4 | 400 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 973 -->
# Lift Station 03

<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use\* |
| 03 | 34 | 71 | 71 |

\* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.

Sanitary Lift Station 03
Lift Station 03 Service Area

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 03 | 2561 Burnham Rd(Below Bridge) | 1 | Flygt 3126-432 | 9.4 | 550 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |
| 03 | 2561 Burnham Rd(Below Bridge) | 2 | Flygt 3126-432 | 9.4 | 550 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 974 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Lift Station 04

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use* |
| 04 | 92 | 138** | 172 |

* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 04 | Brownie Lake (1509 Cedar Lake Pkwy) | 1 | Flygt 3200 | 35 | 600 | 480 Volt 3 Phase |
| 04 | Brownie Lake (1509 Cedar Lake Pkwy) | 2 | Flygt 3200 | 35 | 600 | 480 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 975 -->
# Lift Station 05

<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use* |
| 05 | 4 | 4 | 4 |

\* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 05 | Mississippi Regional Park (5114 Mississippi Drive N) | 1 | Flygt 3126-280 | 10 | 350 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 976 -->
# Lift Station 06

<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use* |
| 06 | 32 | *** | 32 |

\* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.
\*\*\* No SAC units can be determined for all properties.

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| 06 | 2701 Pacific St (NW corner) | 1 | Deming | 5 | 350 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |
| 06 | 2701 Pacific St (NW corner) | 2 | Deming | 5 | 350 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 977 -->
# Lift Station 07

<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use* |
| 07 | 41 | 36** | 54 |

\* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.
\*\* No SAC unites can be determined for some property(ies).

<<FIGURE>> Sanitary Lift Station 07
<<FIGURE>> Lift Station 07 Service Area

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 07 | Boom Island (38 - 7th Ave NE) | 1 | Smith & Loveless | 10 | 500 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |
| 07 | Boom Island (38 - 7th Ave NE) | 2 | Smith & Loveless | 10 | 500 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 978 -->
<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use\* |
| 08 | 4 | \*\*\* | 4 |

\* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.
\*\*\* No SAC units can be determined for all properties.

<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 08 | 1001 Winter St NE | 1 | Deming | 5 | 500 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |
| 08 | 1001 Winter St NE | 2 | Deming | 5 | 500 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 979 -->
<<FIGURE>>

| Lift Station | Existing Design Flow (gpm) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Based on 2016 Water Use | Based on SAC Units | Combination of SAC & Water Use* |
| 10 | 53 | 129 | 129 |

\* Primarily SAC values. When no SAC values determined, then 2016 water use used.

| Lift Station | Location | Pump # | Manufacturer Description | H.P. | Pump Capacity (gpm) | Power Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 10 | Mary's Place (661-5th Ave N) | 1 | Flygt 3102.181 | 5 | 500 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |
| 10 | Mary's Place (661-5th Ave N) | 2 | Flygt 3102.181 | 5 | 500 | 240 Volt 3 Phase |

<!-- page 980 -->
# Appendix G – Sanitary Service Areas

<!-- page 981 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 982 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
7026

2010 CENSUS
4,908

HOUSEHOLDS
2,905

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
22,572,896.92

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
636

ACRES
518.20

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 6,688,724.38 | 29.6% | 2 | 0.3% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 353,827.89 | 1.6% | 2 | 0.3% |
| Major Highway | 97,469.81 | 0.4% | 1 | 0.2% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 293.81 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 541,143.54 | 2.4% | 7 | 1.1% |
| Multifamily | 2,406,366.24 | 10.7% | 64 | 9.7% |
| Office | 432,090.09 | 1.9% | 3 | 0.5% |
| Open Water | 133,097.29 | 0.6% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 4,841,590.06 | 21.4% | 23 | 3.5% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 1,058,605.50 | 4.7% | 14 | 2.1% |
| Single Family Attached | 825,004.14 | 3.7% | 109 | 16.6% |
| Single Family Detached | 4,944,860.70 | 21.9% | 423 | 64.3% |
| Undeveloped | 249,823.48 | 1.1% | 10 | 1.5% |
| | 22,572,896.92 | 100.0% | 658 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 983 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
8255

2010 CENSUS
28,823

HOUSEHOLDS
12,761

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
105,708,971.85

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
7,987

ACRES
2,426.74

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 12,303.42 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 14,118,177.12 | 13.4% | 183 | 2.4% |
| Institutional | 5,571,847.92 | 5.3% | 68 | 0.9% |
| Major Highway | 4,236,936.29 | 4.0% | 1 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 300,205.43 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 933,688.93 | 0.9% | 18 | 0.2% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 997,323.15 | 0.9% | 72 | 1.0% |
| Multifamily | 8,457,937.64 | 8.0% | 403 | 5.4% |
| Office | 378,903.22 | 0.4% | 10 | 0.1% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 6,051,437.45 | 5.7% | 31 | 0.4% |
| Railway | 3,096,990.43 | 2.9% | 41 | 0.5% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 6,242,992.38 | 5.9% | 228 | 3.0% |
| Single Family Attached | 14,633,849.58 | 13.8% | 1,731 | 23.0% |
| Single Family Detached | 37,993,319.37 | 2.5% | 4,622 | 61.5% |
| Undeveloped | 2,683,319.37 | 2.5% | 106 | 1.4% |
| | 105,708,971.85 | 100.0% | 7,516 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 984 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
8754

| 2010 CENSUS | HOUSEHOLDS |
| :--- | :--- |
| 221 | 101 |

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

| SQUARE FEET | SANITARY CONNECTIONS | ACRES |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 2,899,864.42 | 287 | 66.57 |

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 178,880.01 | 6.2% | 3 | 1.0% |
| Institutional | 133.57 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 37,540.27 | 1.3% | 3 | 1.0% |
| Multifamily | 72,854.28 | 2.5% | 3 | 1.0% |
| Office | 27,776.41 | 1.0% | 2 | 0.7% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 108,935.58 | 3.8% | 9 | 3.0% |
| Single Family Attached | 545,553.33 | 18.8% | 73 | 24.3% |
| Single Family Detached | 1,671,264.31 | 57.6% | 205 | 68.1% |
| Undeveloped | 256,926.67 | 8.9% | 3 | 1.0% |
| | 2,899,864.42 | 100.0% | 301 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 985 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-300

2010 CENSUS
22,023

HOUSEHOLDS
8,825

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
139,776,347.84

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
4,927

ACRES
3,208.82

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 1,891,342.81 | 1.4% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 26,414,024.15 | 18.9% | 186 | 4.0% |
| Institutional | 19,114,233.82 | 13.7% | 66 | 1.4% |
| Major Highway | 6,608,402.98 | 4.7% | 2 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 152,486.57 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 946,644.26 | 0.7% | 11 | 0.2% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 1,653,924.32 | 1.2% | 66 | 1.4% |
| Multifamily | 9,876,984.39 | 7.1% | 210 | 4.5% |
| Office | 268,791.41 | 0.2% | 10 | 0.2% |
| Open Water | 591,158.35 | 0.4% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 10,983,561.96 | 7.9% | 88 | 1.9% |
| Railway | 11,127,297.47 | 8.0% | 48 | 1.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 7,617,964.19 | 5.5% | 195 | 4.2% |
| Single Family Attached | 14,672,060.05 | 10.5% | 1,371 | 29.6% |
| Single Family Detached | 23,704,482.17 | 17.0% | 2,296 | 49.6% |
| Undeveloped | 4,152,988.92 | 3.0% | 78 | 1.7% |
| | 139,776,347.84 | 100.0% | 4,629 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 986 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-301

2010 CENSUS
3,282

HOUSEHOLDS
1,206

### AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
22,682,810.19

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
772

ACRES
520.73

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 10,290,773.12 | 45.4% | 55 | 7.3% |
| Institutional | 147,434.15 | 0.6% | 3 | 0.4% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 1,323,247.71 | 5.8% | 4 | 0.5% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 70,498.99 | 0.3% | 4 | 0.5% |
| Multifamily | 1,065,878.93 | 4.7% | 10 | 1.3% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Railway | 3,902,277.07 | 17.2% | 11 | 1.5% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 206,802.48 | 0.9% | 7 | 0.9% |
| Single Family Attached | 1,155,852.39 | 5.1% | 142 | 18.9% |
| Single Family Detached | 4,039,370.57 | 17.8% | 508 | 67.6% |
| Undeveloped | 480,674.78 | 2.1% | 7 | 0.9% |
| | 22,682,810.19 | 100.0% | 751 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 987 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-302A

2010 CENSUS
567

HOUSEHOLDS
107

### AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
4,487,914.00

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
188

ACRES
103.03

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 4,074,755.35 | 90.8% | 29 | 52.7% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 47,233.69 | 1.1% | 3 | 5.5% |
| Multifamily | 229,318.48 | 5.1% | 18 | 32.7% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Railway | 79,433.03 | 1.8% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 54,331.47 | 1.2% | 4 | 7.3% |
| Single Family Attached | 2,841.97 | 0.1% | 1 | 1.8% |
| Single Family Detached | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Undeveloped | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| | 4,487,914.00 | 100.0% | 55 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 988 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-302N

| 2010 CENSUS | | HOUSEHOLDS |
| :--- | :---: | ---: |
| 2,883 | | 1,172 |

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

| SQUARE FEET | SANITARY CONNECTIONS | ACRES |
| :--- | :---: | ---: |
| 34,325,505.18 | 1,095 | 971.90 |

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 156,190.93 | 0.5% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 17,053,492.87 | 49.7% | 135 | 12.9% |
| Institutional | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Major Highway | 2,245,503.66 | 6.5% | 14 | 1.3% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 173,914.35 | 0.5% | 1 | 0.1% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 27,378.24 | 0.1% | 1 | 0.1% |
| Multifamily | 646,590.23 | 1.9% | 26 | 2.5% |
| Office | 1,973,294.04 | 5.7% | 20 | 1.9% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 33,621.99 | 0.1% | 0 | 0.00% |
| Railway | 607,319.49 | 1.8% | 5 | 0.5% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 2,392,924.94 | 7.0% | 36 | 3.4% |
| Single Family Attached | 631,794.76 | 1.8% | 70 | 6.7% |
| Single Family Detached | 6,993,182.12 | 20.4% | 723 | 69.3% |
| Undeveloped | 1,390,297.55 | 4.1% | 13 | 1.2% |
| | 34,325,505.18 | 100% | 1,044 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 989 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
302S

| 2010 CENSUS | | HOUSEHOLDS |
| :--- | :---: | :--- |
| 4,656 | | 891 |

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

| SQUARE FEET | SANITARY CONNECTIONS | ACRES |
| :--- | :---: | :--- |
| 10,794,067.70 | 571 | 357.02 |

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 4,203,239.29 | 38.9% | 47 | 14.3% |
| Institutional | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 322,825.51 | 3.0% | 5 | 1.5% |
| Multifamily | 1,125,879.26 | 10.4% | 35 | 10.6% |
| Office | 30,107.23 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 240,870.97 | 2.2% | 1 | 0.3% |
| Railway | 1,024,622.48 | 9.5% | 5 | 1.5% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 2,111,633.97 | 19.6% | 65 | 19.8% |
| Single Family Attached | 402,350.71 | 3.7% | 52 | 15.8% |
| Single Family Detached | 614,302.81 | 5.7% | 64 | 19.5% |
| Undeveloped | 718,235.47 | 6.7% | 20 | 6.1% |
| | 10,794,067.70 | 100.0% | 329 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 990 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-303

2010 CENSUS
3,841

HOUSEHOLDS
1,654

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
26,777,110.21

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
1,519

ACRES
615.07

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 3,486,042.46 | 13.0% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Industrial and Utility | 2,417,369.71 | 9.0% | 10 | 0.7% |
| Institutional | 389,169.55 | 1.5% | 4 | 0.3% |
| Major Highway | 1,289,725.13 | 4.8% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 43,559.48 | 0.2% | 3 | 0.2% |
| Multifamily | 224,624.79 | 0.8% | 9 | 0.6% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 943,512.50 | 3.5% | 7 | 0.5% |
| Railway | 2,283,384.02 | 8.5% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 207,377.77 | 0.8% | 8 | 0.5% |
| Single Family Attached | 319,756.45 | 1.2% | 35 | 2.3% |
| Single Family Detached | 13,765,108.27 | 51.4% | 1,438 | 94.2% |
| Undeveloped | 1,407,480.08 | 5.3% | 6 | 0.4% |
| | 26,777,110.21 | 100.0% | 1,526 | 100.0% |

<!-- page 991 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-305

2010 CENSUS
35

HOUSEHOLDS
15

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
145,259.57

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
8

ACRES
3.38

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 15,889.41 | 10.9% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Multifamily | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 112,549.53 | 77.5% | 6 | 67.0% |
| Single Family Attached | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Single Family Detached | 16,856.64 | 11.6% | 3 | 33.0% |
| Undeveloped | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| | 145,295.57 | 100.0% | 9 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 992 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-306

| 2010 CENSUS | HOUSEHOLDS |
| :---: | :---: |
| 584 | 239 |

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

| SQUARE FEET | SANITARY CONNECTIONS | ACRES |
| :---: | :---: | :---: |
| 9,404,470.93 | 391 | 215.95 |

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 3,285,422.54 | 34.9% | 3 | 0.8% |
| Industrial and Utility | 1,412,575.55 | 15.0% | 7 | 1.8% |
| Institutional | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Major Highway | 61,646.83 | 0.7% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Multifamily | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 38,630.05 | 0.4% | 1 | 0.3% |
| Railway | 24,136.80 | 0.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 105,370.89 | 1.1% | 8 | 2.0% |
| Single Family Attached | 450,109.98 | 4.8% | 37 | 9.3% |
| Single Family Detached | 3,488,805.27 | 37.1% | 331 | 83.2% |
| Undeveloped | 537,773.02 | 5.7% | 11 | 2.8% |
| | 9,404,470.93 | 100.0% | 398 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 993 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-310

2010 CENSUS
63,005

HOUSEHOLDS
26,865

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
190,345,010.59

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
13,550

ACRES
4,372.77

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 17,090,206.74 | 9.0% | 268 | 2.6% |
| Institutional | 19,856,445.48 | 10.4% | 365 | 3.6% |
| Major Highway | 17,925,304.69 | 9.4% | 20 | 0.2% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 3,558,398.61 | 1.9% | 86 | 0.8% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 2,159,358.77 | 1.1% | 29 | 0.3% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 3,245,279.36 | 1.7% | 137 | 1.3% |
| Multifamily | 17,035,948.90 | 9.0% | 748 | 7.4% |
| Office | 4,519,572.32 | 2.4% | 97 | 1.0% |
| Open Water | 231,218.65 | 0.1% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 16,383,947.42 | 8.6% | 116 | 1.1% |
| Railway | 2,524,069.12 | 1.36% | 47 | 0.5% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 23,108,717.89 | 12.1% | 773 | 7.6% |
| Single Family Attached | 12,274,871.86 | 6.4% | 1,441 | 14.2% |
| Single Family Detached | 45,646,941.64 | 24.0% | 5,650 | 55.6% |
| Undeveloped | 4,784,729.12 | 2.5% | 379 | 3.7% |
| | 190,345,010.59 | 100.0% | 10,156 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 994 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-311

2010 CENSUS
1,983

HOUSEHOLDS
711

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
10,542,547.60

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
517

ACRES
242.19

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 1,275,482.08 | 12.1% | 13 | 2.6% |
| Institutional | 95,454.57 | 0.9% | 1 | 0.2% |
| Major Highway | 2,170,052.59 | 20.6% | 1 | 0.2% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Multifamily | 7,144.89 | 0.1% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 2,298,166.05 | 21.8% | 29 | 5.7% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 366,945.79 | 3.5% | 18 | 3.6% |
| Single Family Attached | 209,500.18 | 2.0% | 22 | 4.3% |
| Single Family Detached | 3,750,557.48 | 35.6% | 412 | 81.4% |
| Undeveloped | 369,243.97 | 3.5% | 10 | 20.0% |
| | 10,542,547.60 | 100.0% | 506 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 995 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-312

2010 CENSUS
3,445

HOUSEHOLDS
1,262

### AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
18,477,240.99

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
1,907

ACRES
424.90

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 434,235.15 | 2.4% | 3 | 0.% |
| Institutional | 1,326,094.15 | 7.2% | 9 | 0.5% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Multifamily | 298,879.56 | 1.6% | 11 | 0.6% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 2,708,509.92 | 14.7% | 27 | 1.5% |
| Railway | 63,330.74 | 0.3% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 210,859.34 | 1.1% | 10 | 0.6% |
| Single Family Attached | 832,888.37 | 4.5% | 139 | 7.8% |
| Single Family Detached | 11,879,814.73 | 64.3% | 1,481 | 82.8% |
| Undeveloped | 722,629.03 | 3.9% | 109 | 6.1% |
| | 18,477,240.99 | 100.0% | 1,789 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 996 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-313

| 2010 CENSUS | HOUSEHOLDS |
| :---: | :---: |
| 1,073 | 371 |

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

| SQUARE FEET | SANITARY CONNECTIONS | ACRES |
| :---: | :---: | :---: |
| 4,859,680.28 | 435 | 111.84 |

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Multifamily | 6,198.51 | 0.1% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Office | 789.11 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 208,176.70 | 4.3% | 2 | 0.5% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 957,665.18 | 19.7% | 5 | 0.5% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 1,557.57 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Single Family Attached | 140,538.11 | 2.9% | 13 | 3.0% |
| Single Family Detached | 3,538,219.32 | 72.8% | 415 | 95.2% |
| Undeveloped | 6,535.78 | 0.1% | 1 | 0.2% |
| | 4,859,680.28 | 100.0% | 436 | 100.0% |

<!-- page 997 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-314

2010 CENSUS
902

HOUSEHOLDS
312

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
4,102,846.36

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
357

ACRES
94.19

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 21,256.03 | 0.5% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 204,714.40 | 5.0% | 2 | 0.6% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Multifamily | 15,259.91 | 0.4% | 2 | 0.6% |
| Office | 816.85 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 589,591.03 | 14.4% | 2 | 0.6% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 15,548.65 | 0.4% | 1 | 0.3% |
| Single Family Attached | 97,725.83 | 2.4% | 7 | 2.0% |
| Single Family Detached | 3,156,455.65 | 76.9% | 330 | 95.9% |
| Undeveloped | 1,478.02 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| | 4,102,846.36 | 100.0% | 344 | 100.0% |

<!-- page 998 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-315

2010 CENSUS
4,155

HOUSEHOLDS
1,767

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
25,642,459.86

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
1,553

ACRES
589.27

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 4,854,135.99 | 18.9% | 19 | 1.2% |
| Institutional | 1,131,480.84 | 4.4% | 19 | 1.2% |
| Major Highway | 39,608,83 | 0.2% | 1 | 0.1% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 108,119.12 | 0.4% | 11 | 0.7% |
| Multifamily | 460,247.68 | 1.8% | 20 | 1.3% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 3,438,808.94 | 13.4% | 10 | 0.6% |
| Railway | 2,169,862.07 | 8.5% | 6 | 0.4% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 342,201.45 | 1.3% | 18 | 1.1% |
| Single Family Attached | 572,936.11 | 2.2% | 56 | 3.5% |
| Single Family Detached | 11,587,490.71 | 45.2% | 1,418 | 89.2% |
| Undeveloped | 946,568.13 | 3.7% | 22 | 1.4% |
| | 25,642,459.86 | 100.0% | 1,589 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 999 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-316

### 2010 CENSUS
7,677

### HOUSEHOLDS
2,950

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

**SQUARE FEET**
32,461,024.64

**SANITARY CONNECTIONS**
3,096

**ACRES**
753.50

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 7,509,166.25 | 23.1% | 19 | 0.6% |
| Major Highway | 50,823.63 | 0.2% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 125,926.86 | 0.4% | 11 | 0.4% |
| Multifamily | 225,284.46 | 0.7% | 19 | 0.6% |
| Office | 23,980.79 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 378,721.85 | 1.2% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 361,941.89 | 1.1% | 21 | 0.7% |
| Single Family Attached | 1,604,025.93 | 4.9% | 170 | 5.5% |
| Single Family Detached | 22,027,362.13 | 67.9% | 2,855 | 91.6% |
| Undeveloped | 153,790.84 | 0.5% | 17 | 0.5% |
| | 32,461,024.64 | 100.0% | 3,116 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1000 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-320

2010 CENSUS
36,464

HOUSEHOLDS
16,035

### AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
149,118,262.89

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
10,413

ACRES
3,442.74

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 14,523,685.21 | 9.7% | 205 | 2.5% |
| Institutional | 12,834,094.77 | 8.6% | 284 | 3.5% |
| Major Highway | 10,949,985.49 | 7.3% | 10 | 0.1% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 267,696.02 | 0.2% | 6 | 0.1% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 206,192.33 | 0.1% | 4 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 1,039,631.30 | 0.7% | 51 | 0.6% |
| Multifamily | 10,431,980.08 | 7.0% | 389 | 4.8% |
| Office | 1,888,655.71 | 1.3% | 25 | 0.3% |
| Open Water | 562,940.36 | 0.4% | 1 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 20,553,006.56 | 13.8% | 105 | 1.3% |
| Railway | 1,962,043.42 | 1.3% | 10 | 0.1% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 8,546,096.84 | 5.7% | 277 | 3.4% |
| Single Family Attached | 12,501,514.13 | 8.4% | 1,363 | 16.8% |
| Single Family Detached | 46,956,547.75 | 31.5% | 5,044 | 62.2% |
| Undeveloped | 5,894,192.92 | 4.0% | 337 | 4.2% |
| | 149,118,262.89 | 100.0% | 8,111 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1001 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-330

2010 CENSUS
41,202

HOUSEHOLDS
19,160

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
108,896,201.07

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
9,262

ACRES
2,499.93

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 8,377,148.74 | 7.7% | 157 | 2.1% |
| Institutional | 7,310,052.05 | 6.7% | 117 | 1.6% |
| Major Highway | 2,396,215.75 | 2.2% | 2 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 436,976.18 | .04% | 10 | 0.1% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 446,241.34 | 0.4% | 9 | 0.1% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 1,839,943.26 | 1.7% | 125 | 1.7% |
| Multifamily | 13,723,550.16 | 12.6% | 825 | 11.1% |
| Office | 2,190,420.06 | 2.0% | 23 | 0.3% |
| Open Water | 269,219.76 | 0.2% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 11,651,604.89 | 10.7% | 95 | 1.3% |
| Railway | 187,510.42 | 0.2% | 3 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 9,627,990.31 | 8.8% | 472 | 6.3% |
| Single Family Attached | 16,407,603.53 | 15.1% | 1,894 | 25.4% |
| Single Family Detached | 32,261,027.83 | 29.6% | 3,597 | 48.3% |
| Undeveloped | 1,770,696.78 | 1.6% | 122 | 1.6% |
| | 108,896,201.07 | 100.0% | 7,451 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1002 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-340

2010 CENSUS
15,070

HOUSEHOLDS
6,894

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
95,979,763.29

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
5,770

ACRES
2,203.4

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 775,798.94 | 1.0% | 4 | 0.1% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 2,045,310.80 | 2.7% | 28 | 0.5% |
| Institutional | 8,685,849.20 | 11.4% | 47 | 0.9% |
| Major Highway | 1,253,666.45 | 1.7% | 3 | 0.1% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 184,052.89 | 0.2% | 15 | 0.3% |
| Multifamily | 2,225,018.98 | 29% | 106 | 1.9% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 125,316.60 | 0.2% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 13,473,971.81 | 17.8% | 32 | 0.6% |
| Railway | 589,577.12 | 0.8% | 1 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 3,739,990.60 | 4.9% | 178 | 3.3% |
| Single Family Attached | 4,176,686.17 | 5.5% | 463 | 8.5% |
| Single Family Detached | 38,257,888.21 | 50.4% | 4,552 | 83.5% |
| Undeveloped | 363,700.51 | 0.5% | 25 | 0.5% |
| | 75,896,828.27 | 100.0% | 5,454 | 100.0% |

Sanitary connections and Sewer Service Area information include the area of outside of the city but land use and population are only for the area within city limit.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1003 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-341

2010 CENSUS
66,124

HOUSEHOLDS
27,903

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
207,114,253.48

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
20,237

ACRES
4,754.71

## LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 457,063.54 | 0.2% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 4,306,641.46 | 2.1% | 107 | 0.6% |
| Institutional | 18,226,689.02 | 8.8% | 166 | 0.9% |
| Major Highway | 3,801,585.50 | 1.8% | 6 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 183,230.17 | 0.1$ | 4 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 36,238.58 | 0.0% | 2 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 2,049,864.98 | 1.0% | 130 | 0.7% |
| Multifamily | 12,533,747.65 | 6.1% | 897 | 4.7% |
| Office | 258,152.17 | 0.1% | 8 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 1,072,183.55 | 0.5% | 1 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 14,478,460.56 | 7.0% | 62 | 0.3% |
| Railway | 1,354,507.41 | 0.7% | 10 | 0.1% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 9,335,697.71 | 4.5% | 545 | 2.8% |
| Single Family Attached | 22,363,165.89 | 10.8% | 2,690 | 14.0% |
| Single Family Detached | 115,010,591.88 | 55.5% | 14,414 | 75.3% |
| Undeveloped | 1,646,433.40 | 0.8% | 108 | 0.6% |
| | 207,114,253.48 | 100.0% | 19,150 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1004 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-342

2010 CENSUS
472

HOUSEHOLDS
206

### AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
2,033,220.50

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
200

ACRES
46.68

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 181,189.85 | 8.9% | 1 | 0.4% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Multifamily | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Single Family Attached | 178,643.84 | 8.8% | 25 | 10.8% |
| Single Family Detached | 1,665,708.38 | 81.9% | 204 | 88.3% |
| Undeveloped | 7,678.43 | 0.4% | 1 | 0.4% |
| | 2,033,220.50 | 100.0% | 231 | 100.0% |

<!-- page 1005 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-343

2010 CENSUS
2,424

HOUSEHOLDS
1,097

### AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
10,004,997.50

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
1,000

ACRES
229.68

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 465,707.13 | 4.7% | 5 | 0.5% |
| Major Highway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 29,167.19 | 0.3% | 3 | 0.3% |
| Multifamily | 486,215.62 | 4.9% | 25 | 2.6% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 576,763.91 | 5.8% | 2 | 0.2% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 570,439.73 | 5.7% | 25 | 2.6% |
| Single Family Attached | 815,364.17 | 8.1% | 89 | 9.4% |
| Single Family Detached | 7,029,332.43 | 70.3% | 796 | 84.1% |
| Undeveloped | 32,007.30 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.2% |
| | 10,004,997.50 | 100.0% | 947 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1006 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-344

| 2010 CENSUS | | HOUSEHOLDS |
| :--- | :---: | :--- |
| 49,952 | | 20,854 |

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

| SQUARE FEET | SANITARY CONNECTIONS | ACRES |
| :--- | :---: | :--- |
| 223,757,215.63 | 19,100 | 5,136.78 |

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 15,607.26 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 6,941,923.69 | 3.1% | 6 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 2,683,539.09 | 1.2% | 42 | 0.2% |
| Institutional | 12,238,610.43 | 5.5% | 115 | 0.6% |
| Major Highway | 6,808,710.00 | 3.1% | 1 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 60,584.83 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 500,532.69 | 0.2% | 29 | 0.2% |
| Multifamily | 3,166,757.94 | 1.4% | 137 | 0.7% |
| Office | 84,633.57 | 0.0% | 5 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 428,333.34 | 0.2% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 23,285,138.74 | 10.5% | 75 | 0.4% |
| Railway | 330,364.81 | 0.1% | 4 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 5,837,668.62 | 2.6% | 250 | 1.3% |
| Single Family Attached | 10,944,267.59 | 4.9% | 1,221 | 6.5% |
| Single Family Detached | 147,653,262.84 | 66.4% | 16,881 | 89.5% |
| Undeveloped | 1,293,811.60 | 0.6% | 99 | 0.5% |
| | 222,273,747.05 | 100.0% | 18,866 | 100.0% |

Sanitary connections and Sewer Service Area information include the area outside of the city but land use and population are only for the area within city limit.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1007 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-345

2010 CENSUS
7,554

HOUSEHOLDS
3,231

## AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
32,419,107.93

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
3,248

ACRES
744.26

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Airport | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 400,435.67 | 1.2% | 3 | 0.1% |
| Major Highway | 256,295.95 | 0.8% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 22,591.47 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Multifamily | 117,730.53 | 0.4% | 5 | 0.2% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 2,225,843.23 | 6.9% | 17 | 0.5% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 674,873.83 | 2.1% | 16 | 0.5% |
| Single Family Attached | 1,615,868.75 | 5.0% | 174 | 5.4% |
| Single Family Detached | 27,052,938.21 | 83.4% | 3,016 | 93.2% |
| Undeveloped | 52,530.28 | 0.2% | 3 | 0.1% |
| | 32,419,107.93 | 100.0% | 3,236 | 100.0% |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1008 -->
# Sanitary Service Area
MN-346

2010 CENSUS
9,252

HOUSEHOLDS
4,046

### AREA
(Includes public right of ways)

SQUARE FEET
42,648,160.47

SANITARY CONNECTIONS
4,076

ACRES
979.07

### LAND USE

| TYPE | AREA – SQUARE FEET | PERCENT OF AREAS | NUMBER OF PARCELS | PERCENT OF PARCELS |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Airport | 392,483.32 | 1.0% | 2 | 0.1% |
| Golf Course | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Industrial and Utility | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Institutional | 1,389,380.29 | 3.5% | 12 | 0.3% |
| Major Highway | 1,668,106.47 | 4.2% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Commercial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Industrial | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Use Residential | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Multifamily | 1,129,1100.72 | 2.8% | 46 | 1.2% |
| Office | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Open Water | 2,030.38 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Park, Recreational, Preserve | 3,989,895.29 | 9.9% | 7 | 0.2% |
| Railway | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| Retail and Other Commercial | 364,908.06 | 0.9% | 19 | 0.5% |
| Single Family Attached | 886,044.18 | 2.2% | 99 | 2.5% |
| Single Family Detached | 30,269,609.30 | 75.5% | 3,786 | 95.3% |
| Undeveloped | 8,156.30 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.0% |
| | 40,099,724.31 | 100.0% | 3,972 | 100.0% |

Sanitary connections and Sewer Service Area information include the area of outside of the city but land use and population are only for the area within city limit.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1009 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 1010 -->
# Appendix H – City of Minneapolis Sewage Flow Projections and Trunk Sewer Capacity Analysis by Interceptor Service Area

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1011 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 1012 -->
# Instructions and Methodology

Sewage flow in the City of Minneapolis (City) is not metered at the source, rather billing is based on water consumption; billing data provides the most accurate and accessible source of sewage flow estimates available. Base year sewage flow estimates (2010) for the City were derived from customer billings for water service from the City Utility Billing Department. The data is grouped into Residential, Multiple Dwelling, Commercial, Industrial, Government, and Wholesaled water to other municipalities. As the sewer projection is for the City, all except Wholesaled water to other municipalities were used for projection. Residential and Multiple Dwelling were tied up as one and matched with population projection for residential sewer flow projection while Commercial, Industrial, and Government were grouped and matched with employment projection to estimate their sewer flow projections.

In the case of Residential sewer flow projection, it is based on 2010 winter season (December, January, February) usage of Residential and Multiple Dwelling to remove outflow to stormwater by irrigation. The usage of water in these three months was multiplied by four to estimate sewer outflow for the year.

If Sewer Service Areas include outside areas of the City of Minneapolis, those parcels were excluded as they are not part of the City. Hence, the projection estimates only the City part of the sewersheds. Also, this projection was calculated under an assumption that there is no change in water use per capita.

# Process Overview

### Base Data

* 2010 annual water usage by land use (Source: City of Minneapolis Utility Billing Department).

* Existing land use (Source: City of Minneapolis).

* Population and employment projections by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) for the City of Minneapolis area; base year 2010, and projections for 2020, 2030, and 2040, with polygon shape file (Base Data Source: Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Geospatial Commons. Revised Population Forecast Source: City of Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development).

* Demographic projections of the City by Sanitary Sewer Service Areas; base year 2010, and projections for 2020, 2030, and 2040, derived from TAZ projections made by Metropolitan Council (Source: City of Minneapolis Public Works).

* Polygon shape file of Interceptor Service Areas of Minneapolis (Source: City of Minneapolis Public Works).

### Major Steps

* Citywide sewage flow total was calculated based on annual water usage of non-residential usage and winter usage of residential usage (December, January, and February) to remove outflow to stormwater by irrigations and then multiplied by four to estimate usage for the year.

<!-- page 1013 -->
* Citywide sewage flow total was apportioned to each Interceptor Service Area based on population and employment proportion of the Interceptor Service Areas; employment was used for non-residential use and population was used for residential use.

* Existing land use was generalized into residential and non-residential uses.

* Citywide sewage flow total was apportioned to each Interceptor Service Area based on percentage of residential and non-residential land use. For example, if an Interceptor Service Area contains 5 percent of the City’s residential land uses, then 5 percent of the 2010 residential water usage was apportioned for that area.

* For each Interceptor Service Area, the 2020 projected changes in population and employment were multiplied by the 2010 per capita water usage and added to the 2010 sewer flow. This process was repeated for each Interceptor Service Area using projected changes in population and employment in 2030 and 2040.

## Demographic Projection for the City of Minneapolis by Interceptor Service Area (2010 ~ 2040)

The following table provides figures for population, number of households, and employment for each Interceptor Service Area of Minneapolis. These figures were derived from projections of change in population and employment by Transportation Analysis Zone, which were created by the Metropolitan Council, and updated by the City of Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development. For the purpose of this report, Transportation Analysis Zones were modified by various spatial analysis me[^p1013-1]

[^p1013-1]: Transportation Analysis Zones (Official TAZ System w/3,030 Zones) with Current Forecasts, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Geospatial Commons, https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-trans-anlys-zones-official-current. Revised forecasts created by City of Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development, MPLS_2040_TAZ, October 10, 2018.

<!-- page 1014 -->
### Demographic Projection of the City of Minneapolis by Interceptor Service Area, 2010 through 2040

| Interceptor Service Area | Population (2010) | Households (2010) | Employment (2010) | Population (2020) | Households (2020) | Employment (2020) | Population (2030) | Households (2030) | Employment (2030) | Population (2040) | Households (2040) | Employment (2040) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 7026 | 4,908 | 2,905 | 2,487 | 6,225 | 3,168 | 3,160 | 7,916 | 4,008 | 3,199 | 10,041 | 5,034 | 3,238 |
| 8255 | 28,823 | 12,761 | 15,794 | 35,705 | 14,989 | 18,858 | 37,310 | 15,314 | 19,104 | 38,924 | 15,712 | 19,347 |
| 8754 | 221 | 101 | 282 | 268 | 117 | 333 | 274 | 119 | 337 | 278 | 120 | 341 |
| MN-300 | 22,023 | 8,825 | 20,053 | 27,884 | 12,173 | 21,839 | 29,535 | 12,702 | 22,334 | 31,280 | 13,349 | 22,831 |
| MN-301 | 3,282 | 1,206 | 3,176 | 3,079 | 1,233 | 3,665 | 3,205 | 1,249 | 3,711 | 3,331 | 1,269 | 3,756 |
| MN-302A | 567 | 107 | 308 | 504 | 234 | 644 | 538 | 247 | 652 | 575 | 264 | 660 |
| MN-302N | 2,883 | 1,172 | 11,108 | 3,026 | 1,241 | 12,778 | 3,120 | 1,260 | 12,938 | 3,218 | 1,285 | 13,096 |
| MN-302S | 4,656 | 891 | 9,980 | 5,643 | 2,507 | 11,557 | 5,954 | 2,806 | 11,701 | 6,382 | 3,172 | 11,846 |
| MN-303 | 3,841 | 1,654 | 617 | 4,410 | 1,718 | 721 | 4,640 | 1,797 | 786 | 4,889 | 1,892 | 851 |
| MN-305 | 35 | 15 | 4 | 40 | 15 | 4 | 41 | 16 | 4 | 41 | 16 | 4 |
| MN-306 | 584 | 239 | 608 | 618 | 243 | 721 | 629 | 247 | 730 | 634 | 250 | 738 |
| MN-310 | 63,005 | 26,865 | 143,000 | 74,850 | 35,290 | 166,234 | 80,541 | 37,563 | 176,866 | 86,597 | 40,347 | 187,495 |
| MN-311 | 1,983 | 711 | 276 | 2,147 | 767 | 281 | 2,192 | 776 | 284 | 2,235 | 786 | 288 |
| MN-312 | 3,445 | 1,262 | 434 | 3,787 | 1,316 | 524 | 3,864 | 1,331 | 531 | 3,924 | 1,349 | 537 |
| MN-313 | 1,073 | 371 | 0 | 1,147 | 371 | 0 | 1,168 | 376 | 0 | 1,175 | 381 | 0 |
| MN-314 | 902 | 312 | 48 | 964 | 312 | 123 | 981 | 316 | 125 | 987 | 320 | 126 |
| MN-315 | 4,155 | 1,767 | 699 | 4,910 | 1,865 | 933 | 5,035 | 1,886 | 944 | 5,137 | 1,912 | 955 |
| MN-316 | 7,677 | 2,950 | 424 | 8,991 | 3,145 | 601 | 9,117 | 3,180 | 610 | 9,172 | 3,223 | 616 |
| MN-320 | 36,464 | 16,035 | 22,126 | 42,760 | 19,230 | 25,347 | 46,512 | 20,911 | 26,329 | 50,654 | 22,963 | 27,313 |
| MN-330 | 41,202 | 19,160 | 25,800 | 44,620 | 22,266 | 34,087 | 48,861 | 23,778 | 34,539 | 53,379 | 25,626 | 34,988 |
| MN-340 | 15,070 | 6,894 | 3,875 | 18,413 | 7,561 | 4,647 | 19,569 | 7,923 | 4,725 | 20,739 | 8,362 | 4,805 |
| MN-341 | 66,124 | 27,903 | 11,224 | 70,584 | 31,084 | 14,783 | 73,119 | 31,976 | 15,028 | 75,141 | 33,068 | 15,273 |
| MN-342 | 472 | 206 | 40 | 459 | 213 | 76 | 459 | 216 | 77 | 459 | 220 | 78 |
| MN-343 | 2,424 | 1,097 | 412 | 2,563 | 1,152 | 546 | 2,550 | 1,174 | 552 | 2,542 | 1,201 | 559 |
| MN-344 | 49,952 | 20,854 | 7,862 | 53,523 | 21,700 | 8,630 | 54,074 | 22,023 | 8,771 | 54,368 | 22,422 | 8,917 |
| MN-345 | 7,554 | 3,231 | 674 | 8,100 | 3,347 | 754 | 8,101 | 3,434 | 763 | 8,089 | 3,540 | 772 |
| MN-346 | 9,252 | 4,046 | 413 | 10,505 | 4,249 | 551 | 10,697 | 4,303 | 558 | 10,806 | 4,366 | 566 |
| **Total** | **382,578** | **163,540** | **281,724** | **435,992** | **191,508** | **332,395** | **460,002** | **200,926** | **346,198** | **484,997** | **212,447** | **360,000** |

<!-- page 1015 -->
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

<!-- page 1016 -->
# Capacity and Design Flows for Existing Trunk Sewer for 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040 by Interceptor Service Area

### Trunk Sewers

Trunk sewers were identified for each interceptor service area. In some cases, the Metropolitan Council interceptors serve as trunk sewers and these are noted in the tables presented in the maps for each interceptor service area. If an interceptor service area has more than one trunk sewer, then it was divided into trunk sewer areas based on the number of trunk sewers present. If it has only one trunk sewer, then the interceptor service area will be the same as the trunk sewer service area.

### Average Wastewater Flows (Base Flows)

Average wastewater base flows were estimated based on 2010 annual water usage of non-residential customers and winter usage of residential customers (December, January, and February) multiplied by 4 and projections made through 2040 based on TAZ projections as described in Appendix G. Citywide sewage flow total was apportioned to each interceptor service area based on population and employment proportion of the interceptor service area; employment was used for non-residential use and population was used for residential use. If the interceptor service area has divisions based on trunk sewer areas, a portion of the sewer flow for the interceptor will be apportioned further to each trunk sewer service area based on population and employment proportion of the trunk sewer service area. Annual average base flow volume was computed by adding both the residential and non-residential flows.

If sewer service areas include outside areas of Minneapolis, those areas were excluded as they are not part of Minneapolis. Hence, the flow is estimated only for the Minneapolis part of the service area.

Where Metropolitan Council interceptors serve as a trunk sewer, the flows are incremental as there is flow already in the system generated by other service areas.

### Design Flows

Design flow was calculated for each trunk sewer for base flow year 2010 and projections for 2020, 2030, and 2040 by converting the annual base flow volume into million gallons per day (mgd) and multiplying it by a factor of 4 to account for peak flow and inflow and infiltration (I/I).

### Existing Pipe Capacity

Pipe capacity of each trunk sewer was calculated based on Manning equation at full depth. Manning’s Roughness Coefficient was assumed to be 0.013 for all pipes. Pipe capacity was not calculated for Metropolitan Council interceptors where they serve as a trunk sewer.

### Base Data

* 2010 annual water usage by land use (Source: City of Minneapolis Utility Billing).
* Existing land use (Source: City of Minneapolis).

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1017 -->
* Population and employment projections by Transportation Analysis Zone for Minneapolis Area; base year 2010 and projections of 2020, 2030, and 2040 with polygon shapefile (Base Data Source: Metropolitan Council. Revised Population Forecast Source: City of Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development).

* Demographic projections of the City of Minneapolis by Sanitary Sewer Service Areas; base year 2010 and projections of 2020, 2030, and 2040 derived from Transportation Analysis Zone projections made by Metropolitan Council (Source: City of Minneapolis Public Works).

* Polygon shapefile of Interceptor Service Areas of Minneapolis (Source: City of Minneapolis Public Works).

* Trunk sewer pipe properties like diameter, length, and inverts (Source: City of Minneapolis GIS database).

<!-- page 1018 -->
# Interceptor Service Area 7026

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 7026 | 2.564 | 2.980 | 16.22% | 3.338 | 12.02% | 3.786 | 13.43% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| 7026 | Midtown Greenway W and E Lake Calhoun Pkwy | 30 | X |

<!-- page 1019 -->
# Interceptor Service Area 8255

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 8255-A | 2.176 | 2.503 | 15.00% | 2.542 | 1.56% | 2.578 | 1.41% |
| 8255-B | 0.877 | 1.044 | 19.08% | 1.069 | 2.37% | 1.095 | 2.44% |
| 8255-C | 2.680 | 3.096 | 15.52% | 3.182 | 2.75% | 3.267 | 2.68% |
| 8255-D | 4.378 | 5.545 | 26.67% | 5.781 | 4.25% | 6.019 | 4.13% |
| Total | 10.111 | 12.189 | | 12.573 | | 12.959 | |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer for all areas and hence the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | | | Trunk Full Pipe Capacity, MGD | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | Slope (%) | n value | | |
| 8255-A | Central Ave NE and Lowry Ave NE | 30 | 0.24% | 0.013 | 12.98 | |
| 8255-B | Central Ave NE and 22nd Ave NE | 18 | 0.25% | 0.013 | 3.39 | |
| 8255-C | 5th St NE and 3rd Ave NE | 48 | 0.28% | 0.013 | 49.19 | |
| 8255-D | University Ave SE and 13th Ave SE | 120 | | | | X |

<!-- page 1020 -->
# Interceptor Service Area 8754

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 8754 | 0.265 | 0.285 | 7.69% | 0.287 | 0.74% | 0.289 | 0.61% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| 8754 | 22nd Ave NE and Grand St NE | 96 | X |

<!-- page 1021 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-300

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-300-A | 2.728 | 2.905 | 6.50% | 3.013 | 3.72% | 3.132 | 3.94% |
| MN-300-B | 2.361 | 2.587 | 9.56% | 2.666 | 3.08% | 2.746 | 2.99% |
| MN-300-C | 0.888 | 1.105 | 24.49% | 1.130 | 2.24% | 1.152 | 1.98% |
| MN-300-D | 1.118 | 1.387 | 24.02% | 1.426 | 2.80% | 1.463 | 2.62% |
| MN-300-E | 0.613 | 1.061 | 73.12% | 1.139 | 7.37% | 1.225 | 7.49% |
| MN-300-F | 1.982 | 2.239 | 12.94% | 2.357 | 5.27% | 2.480 | 5.24% |
| Total | 9.690 | 11.284 | | 11.731 | | 12.198 | |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer for all areas and hence the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | | | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | Slope (%) | n value | Trunk Full Pipe Capacity, MGD | |
| MN-300-A | 23rd Ave NE and Marshall St NE | 65 | | | | X |
| MN-300-B | 22nd Ave NE and Marshall St NE | 24 | 0.25% | 0.013 | 10.23 | |
| MN-300-C | 11th Ave NE and Main St NE | 42 | 1.30% | 0.013 | 74.13 | |
| MN-300-D | 2nd St SE and 2nd Ave SE | 54 x 72 Horseshoe | | | | X |
| MN-300-E | 3rd Ave NE and Main St NE | 48 | 0.40% | 0.013 | 58.71 | |
| MN-300-F | Emerald St and East River Terr | 72 | | | | X |

<!-- page 1022 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-301

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-301 | 2.725 | 2.787 | 2.29% | 2.823 | 1.28% | 2.859 | 1.27% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-301 | Elm St SE and 19th Ave SE | 66 | X |

<!-- page 1023 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-302A

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-302A | 0.486 | 0.544 | 12.04% | 0.553 | 1.64% | 0.562 | 1.68% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-302A | Oak St SE and University Ave SE | 42 | X |

<!-- page 1024 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-302N

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-302N | 5.895 | 6.281 | 6.54% | 6.334 | 0.85% | 6.388 | 0.85% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-302N | Dinkytown Greenway SE and 6th St SE | 96 | X |

<!-- page 1025 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-302S

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-302S | 1.847 | 2.388 | 29.26% | 2.483 | 3.98% | 2.602 | 4.81% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-302S | Oak St SE and East River Pkwy | 42 | X |

<!-- page 1026 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-303

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-303 | 2.190 | 2.330 | 6.38% | 2.392 | 2.63% | 2.457 | 2.74% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-303 | University Ave NE between 32nd Ave NE and 30th Ave NE | 36 | X |

<!-- page 1027 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-305

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-305 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 13.99% | 0.008 | 2.03% | 0.008 | 1.94% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-305 | Tyler St NE & 36th Ave NE | 16 | X |

<!-- page 1028 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-306

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-306 | 1.175 | 1.207 | 2.65% | 1.211 | 0.34% | 1.214 | 0.25% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-306 | Saint Anthony Pkwy and 5th St NE | 48 | X |

<!-- page 1029 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-310

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/ Equivalent Diameter, inch | Slope (%) | n value | Trunk Full Pipe Capacity, MGD | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| MN-310-A | Port of MPLS Dr & 1st St N | 52 | 1.53% | 0.013 | 142.14 | |
| MN-310-B | 21st Ave N and 2nd St N | 54 | | | | X |
| MN-310-C | Fremont Ave N & 26th Ave N | 60 | 0.32% | 0.013 | 95.21 | |
| MN-310-D | 26th Ave N & 2nd St N | 78 | 25.9% | 0.013 | 117.36 | |
| MN-310-E | 21st Ave N & 2nd St N | 48 | 0.43% | 0.013 | 60.87 | |
| MN-310-F | Marquette Ave & Washington Ave S | 40 | 0.19% | 0.013 | 24.88 | |
| MN-310-G | Chicago Ave & Washington Ave S | 90 | | | | X |
| MN-310-H | 11th Ave S & 4th St S | 60 | 1.13% | 0.013 | 178.91 | |
| MN-310-I | 2 1/2 St S & 19th Ave S | 96 | | | | X |
| MN-310-J | Locust St & 23rd Ave S | 102 x 102 Horseshoe | | | | X |
| MN-310-K | On riverfront near W River Pkwy S and 26th St E | 120 | | | | X |

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-310-A | 1.320 | 1.475 | 11.73% | 1.487 | 0.82% | 1.487 | 0.04% |
| MN-310-B | 1.581 | 1.665 | 5.32% | 1.670 | 0.31% | 1.676 | 0.34% |
| MN-310-C | 2.033 | 2.231 | 9.76% | 2.207 | -1.10% | 2.164 | -1.93% |
| MN-310-D | 1.870 | 1.978 | 5.75% | 1.990 | 0.65% | 1.990 | -0.02% |
| MN-310-E | 0.549 | 0.535 | -2.60% | 0.554 | 3.70% | 0.572 | 3.25% |
| MN-310-F | 1.654 | 2.661 | 60.89% | 2.873 | 7.96% | 3.091 | 7.62% |
| MN-310-G | 1.764 | 6.586 | 273.36% | 8.458 | 28.43% | 10.406 | 23.03% |
| MN-310-H | 3.129 | 3.152 | 0.73% | 4.063 | 28.93% | 4.992 | 22.86% |
| MN-310-I | 0.506 | 1.195 | 136.23% | 1.313 | 9.89% | 1.450 | 10.42% |
| MN-310-J | 1.876 | 2.181 | 16.22% | 2.446 | 12.16% | 2.714 | 10.97% |
| MN-310-K | 0.726 | 0.754 | 3.84% | 0.794 | 5.26% | 0.831 | 4.68% |
| Total | 17.008 | 24.411 | | 27.855 | | 31.374 | |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer for all areas and hence the flows are incremental.

<!-- page 1030 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-311

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-311 | 0.655 | 0.690 | 5.34% | 0.700 | 1.45% | 0.709 | 1.37% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-311 | Lyndale Ave N north of Webber Pkwy at Shingle Creek | 48 | X |

<!-- page 1031 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-312

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-312 | 1.513 | 1.603 | 5.95% | 1.620 | 1.08% | 1.634 | 0.85% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-312 | Lyndale Ave N and 47th Ave N | 72 | X |

<!-- page 1032 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-313

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-313 | 0.341 | 0.356 | 4.45% | 0.360 | 1.24% | 0.362 | 0.39% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-313 | Penn Ave N and 52nd Ave N | 24 | X |

<!-- page 1033 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-315

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-315 | 2.325 | 2.531 | 8.87% | 2.559 | 1.12% | 2.583 | 0.91% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-315 | Webber Pkwy and Lyndale Ave N | 54 | X |

<!-- page 1034 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-316

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-316 | 3.826 | 4.136 | 8.09% | 4.164 | 0.68% | 4.176 | 0.30% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-316 | 42nd Ave N and Lundale Ave N | 72 | X |

<!-- page 1035 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-320

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | Location | Trunk Pipe Properties | | | Trunk Full Pipe Capacity, MGD | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | Slope (%) | n value | | |
| MN-320-A | W Chestnut Ave & Morgan Ave N | 51 | 0.79% | 0.013 | 96.98 | |
| MN-320-B | Sumner Ct & Aldrich Ave N | 54 | 3.20% | 0.013 | 227.32 | |
| MN-320-C | 8th Ave N & 5th St N | 48 | 2.14% | 0.013 | 135.79 | |
| MN-320-D | 2nd Ave N & 5th St N | 102 x 72 oval | | | | X |
| MN-320-E | 6th Ave N between Bryant Ave N & Girard Terr | 86 | | | | X |
| MN-320-F | Humboldt Ave N & 4th Ave N | 15 | 0.12% | 0.013 | 1.45 | |
| MN-320-G | Van White Memorial Blvd & 2nd Ave N | 86 | | | | X |
| MN-320-H | Morgan Ave N & Chestnut Ave W | 42 | | | | X |
| MN-320-I | Thomas Ave N & Inglewood Ave | 18 | 0.18% | 0.013 | 1.77 | |
| MN-320-J | Russell Ave S & W Chestnut Ave | 18 | 0.05% | 0.013 | 1.52 | |
| MN-320-K | Currie Ave W & Irving Ave N | 86 | | | | X |
| MN-320-L | Between 2nd Ave N & Colfax Ave N (int) & I394 | 72 | 0.33% | 0.013 | 157.22 | |

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-320-A | 3.026 | 3.218 | 6.36% | 3.232 | 0.42% | 3.229 | -0.09% |
| MN-320-B | 2.463 | 2.403 | -2.44% | 2.504 | 4.21% | 2.608 | 4.16% |
| MN-320-C | 0.411 | 0.705 | 71.33% | 0.784 | 11.19% | 0.878 | 12.07% |
| MN-320-D | 1.141 | 1.486 | 30.17% | 1.953 | 31.49% | 2.500 | 27.97% |
| MN-320-E | 0.366 | 0.386 | 5.38% | 0.427 | 10.47% | 0.473 | 10.86% |
| MN-320-F | 0.065 | 0.065 | 1.13% | 0.073 | 11.37% | 0.081 | 11.58% |
| MN-320-G | 0.207 | 0.221 | 6.80% | 0.224 | 1.30% | 0.227 | 1.23% |
| MN-320-H | 0.052 | 0.056 | 7.47% | 0.057 | 2.60% | 0.058 | 1.69% |
| MN-320-I | 0.073 | 0.080 | 10.60% | 0.080 | -0.29% | 0.078 | -2.13% |
| MN-320-J | 1.360 | 1.421 | 4.44% | 1.426 | 0.36% | 1.430 | 0.32% |
| MN-320-K | 0.675 | 0.752 | 11.31% | 0.764 | 1.64% | 0.775 | 1.38% |
| MN-320-L | 2.268 | 3.305 | 45.71% | 3.560 | 7.71% | 3.813 | 7.11% |
| Total | 12.108 | 14.097 | | 15.083 | | 16.150 | |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

<!-- page 1036 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-330

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-330-A | 1.672 | 1.820 | 8.84% | 1.886 | 3.60% | 1.954 | 3.64% |
| MN-330-B | 2.325 | 3.122 | 34.31% | 3.350 | 7.29% | 3.577 | 6.78% |
| MN-330-C | 2.267 | 3.235 | 42.71% | 3.411 | 5.43% | 3.587 | 5.17% |
| MN-330-D | 2.067 | 2.269 | 9.78% | 2.567 | 13.14% | 2.894 | 12.76% |
| MN-330-E | 1.946 | 2.304 | 18.40% | 2.512 | 8.99% | 2.743 | 9.20% |
| Total | 10.277 | 12.751 | | 13.725 | | 14.756 | |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer for all areas and hence the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-330-A | 27th St E & Hennepin Ave | 54 | X |
| MN-330-B | 27th St E & Nicollet Ave | 72 | X |
| MN-330-C | 26th St E & 15th Ave S | 96 | X |
| MN-330-D | 26th St E & 24th Ave S | 96 | X |
| MN-330-E | 26th St E & 39th Ave S | 96 | X |

<!-- page 1037 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-340

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-340-A | 2.888 | 3.243 | 12.31% | 3.349 | 3.25% | 3.449 | 3.00% |
| MN-340-B | 1.648 | 1.957 | 18.75% | 2.060 | 5.26% | 2.177 | 5.67% |
| MN-340-C | 1.172 | 1.322 | 12.77% | 1.339 | 1.29% | 1.350 | 0.81% |
| MN-340-D | 0.381 | 0.401 | 5.24% | 0.430 | 7.10% | 0.459 | 6.81% |
| MN-340-E | 0.599 | 0.621 | 3.72% | 0.623 | 0.28% | 0.625 | 0.31% |
| Total | 6.687 | 7.544 | | 7.799 | | 8.059 | |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer for all areas and hence the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | | | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | Slope (%) | n value | Trunk Full Pipe Capacity, MGD | |
| MN-340-A | Lake St E & W River PKWY | 66 | 0.46% | 0.013 | 147.18 | |
| MN-340-B | 32nd St E & W River PKWY | 66 X 72 Horseshoe | | | | X |
| MN-340-C | Hiawatha Ave & 50th St E | 42 X 72 Horseshoe | 14.64% | 0.013 | 71.40 | |
| MN-340-D | 46th Ave S & Godfrey PKWY | 42 X 72 Horseshoe | | | | X |
| MN-340-E | Hiawatha Ave & 54th St E | 36 X 72 Semi Elliptical | 0.13% | 0.013 | 41.43 | |

<!-- page 1038 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-341

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-341-A | 1.929 | 2.009 | 4.13% | 2.017 | 0.42% | 2.025 | 0.41% |
| MN-341-B | 5.497 | 5.997 | 9.10% | 6.135 | 2.30% | 6.272 | 2.22% |
| MN-341-C | 1.852 | 1.823 | -1.58% | 1.901 | 4.31% | 1.968 | 3.51% |
| MN-341-D | 3.155 | 3.362 | 6.54% | 3.403 | 1.24% | 3.414 | 0.32% |
| MN-341-E | 1.668 | 1.710 | 2.51% | 1.698 | -0.67% | 1.676 | -1.33% |
| MN-341-F | 5.560 | 6.498 | 16.88% | 6.764 | 4.09% | 7.035 | 4.01% |
| Total | 19.661 | 21.398 | | 21.919 | | 22.390 | |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer for the areas of MN-341-A, MN-341-B, MN-341-D & MN-341-F and hence the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | | | Trunk Full Pipe Capacity, MGD | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | Slope (%) | n value | | |
| MN-341-A | Dupont Ave S & 40th St W | 60 | | | | X |
| MN-341-B | 38th St W & Blaisdell Ave | 90 | | | | X |
| MN-341-C | 15th Ave S & 37th Ave S | 57 | 1.25% | 0.013 | 164.11 | |
| MN-341-D | 38th St W & 22nd Ave S | 111 | | | | X |
| MN-341-E | Park Ave & 3th St E | 66 | 0.12% | 0.013 | 75.17 | |
| MN-341-F | 38th St E & Edmund BLVD | 54 | | | | X |

<!-- page 1039 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-342

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-342 | 0.205 | 0.210 | 2.44% | 0.210 | 0.11% | 0.210 | 0.09% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-342 | Drew Ave S and 39th St W | 14 | X |

<!-- page 1040 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-343

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-343 | 0.949 | 1.007 | 6.03% | 1.005 | -0.12% | 1.005 | -0.02% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-343 | 38th St W and Xerxes Ave S | 24 | X |

<!-- page 1041 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-344

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-344-A | 2.303 | 2.448 | 6.32% | 2.439 | -0.39% | 2.431 | -0.31% |
| MN-344-B | 1.825 | 1.774 | -2.80% | 1.762 | -0.69% | 1.749 | -0.73% |
| MN-344-C | 3.383 | 3.477 | 2.79% | 3.473 | -0.12% | 3.461 | -0.35% |
| MN-344-D | 2.567 | 2.764 | 7.70% | 2.799 | 1.27% | 2.822 | 0.81% |
| MN-344-E | 1.092 | 1.167 | 6.94% | 1.182 | 1.25% | 1.194 | 1.04% |
| MN-344-F | 1.121 | 1.229 | 9.61% | 1.243 | 1.13% | 1.252 | 0.69% |
| MN-344-G | 1.133 | 1.217 | 7.36% | 1.239 | 1.79% | 1.250 | 0.89% |
| MN-344-H | 1.463 | 1.548 | 5.84% | 1.582 | 2.14% | 1.607 | 1.60% |
| MN-344-I | 1.482 | 1.528 | 3.10% | 1.556 | 1.79% | 1.576 | 1.31% |
| MN-344-J | 1.344 | 1.394 | 3.78% | 1.392 | -0.16% | 1.389 | -0.19% |
| MN-344-K | 2.395 | 2.462 | 2.80% | 2.488 | 1.06% | 2.516 | 1.10% |
| Total | 20.108 | 21.010 | | 21.155 | | 21.247 | |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | | | Trunk Full Pipe Capacity, MGD | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | Slope (%) | n value | | |
| MN-344-A | W 51st St and James Ave S | 24 | | | | X |
| MN-344-B | E Minnehaha Pkwy and 5th Ave S | 48 | | | | X |
| MN-344-C | E Minnehaha Pkwy and Portland Ave | 102 | 0.33% | 0.013 | 397.99 | |
| MN-344-D | E Minnehaha Pkwy and Longfellow Ave | 84 | 0.12% | 0.013 | 143.00 | |
| MN-344-E | E 46th St and Nokomis Ave S | 35 | 0.28% | 0.013 | 21.16 | |
| MN-344-F | E 47th St and 38th Ave S | 132 x 123 Horseshoe | | | | X |
| MN-344-G | E 48th St and Cedar Ave S | 110 | | | | X |
| MN-344-H | E Minnehaha Pkwy and 18th Ave S | 21 | 0.15% | 0.013 | 3.97 | |
| MN-344-I | E Minnehaha Pkwy and Park Ave | 110 | | | | X |
| MN-344-J | E Minnehaha Pkwy and Stevens Ave | 22 | 0.32% | 0.013 | 6.56 | |
| MN-344-K | E 60th St and I35W | 21 | 0.22% | 0.013 | 4.80 | |

<!-- page 1042 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-345

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MN-345 | 2.928 | 3.057 | 4.44% | 3.059 | 0.07% | 3.059 | -0.01% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-345 | Humboldt Ave S and W Minnehaha Pkwy | 30 | X |

<!-- page 1043 -->
# Interceptor Service Area MN-346

<<FIGURE>>

| Interceptor Service Area | 2010 Design Flow Rate Based on 2010 Water Use, MGD | 2020 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2010-2020 | 2030 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2020-2030 | 2040 Design Flow Rate (Projected), MGD | Design Flow Rate Percent Change 2030-2040 |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MN-346 | 3.337 | 3.626 | 8.65% | 3.667 | 1.14% | 3.691 | 0.66% |

Note: 1-Sewer Service Area outside of Minneapolis was not considered.
2-Where MCES interceptors serve as trunk sewer, the flows are incremental.

| Interceptor Service Area | Trunk Pipe Properties | | MCES Sewer as Trunk Sewer |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: |
| | Location | Diameter/Equivalent Diameter, inch | |
| MN-346 | 52nd St E and 46th Ave S | 75 | X |

<!-- page 1044 -->
# Appendix I – External Properties Served by City of Minneapolis Sanitary Sewers

<!-- page 1045 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 1046 -->
# Fort Snelling Area Sewer Estimates for 2015

| Agency | Address | Estimates (Gallons) 2015 | Proportion within Fort Snelling Area |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: |
| Metropolitan Airports Commission | 6040 South 28^th Avenue | 214,208,416 | 75.94% |
| Minnesota Air National Guard | 5891 46^th Avenue South | 3,387,161 | 1.20% |
| Veterans Medical Center | 1 Veterans Drive | 55,343,037 | 19.62% |
| Veterans Administration B-89 | 6001 Minnehaha Avenue | 356,814 | 0.13% |
| Veterans and Community Housing | 5115 54^th Street East | 772,731 | 0.27% |
| Bishop Henry Whipple Building/GSA | 1 Federal Drive | 3,758,196 | 1.33% |
| Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Fort Snelling Park) | 101 Snelling Lake Road | 1,529,008 | 0.54% |
| Minnesota Department of Transportation | 6000 Minnehaha Avenue | 206,454 | 0.07% |
| 934^th SPTG/CERU | 4122 59^th Street East | 1,342,753 | 0.48% |
| United States Army – 88^th Regional Support Command | 506 Roeder Circle | 667,998 | 0.24% |
| Marine Forces Reserve | 6400 Bloomington Road | 151,097 | 0.05% |
| Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (Fort Snelling Golf Course) | 5701 Leavenworth Avenue | 51,613 | 0.02% |
| Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (Neiman Sports Complex) | 6247 Bloomington Road, 100 Federal Drive | 169,053 | 0.06% |
| Northern Star Council Base Camp | 201 Bloomington Road | 139,880 | 0.05% |
| **Fort Snelling Total** | | **282,084,211** | **100%** |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1047 -->
# Properties with Sanitary Sewer Connections

| Property ID | Account No. | Street Address | City |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 292923220001 | 4260257401 | 2530 Kasota Avenue | St. Paul |
| 202923330005 | 2031122400 | 2565 Kasota Avenue | St. Paul |
| 292923220012 | 2031183401 | 2578 Kasota Avenue | St. Paul |
| 1011821110002 | 6160193400 | 5145 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110002 | 6160193400 | 5145 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110005 | 2030727400 | 5123 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110006 | 2030726401 | 5117 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110007 | 2030725402 | 5109 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110012 | 6010193401 | 5243 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110013 | 2030732401 | 5233 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110014 | 2030731404 | 5223 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110021 | 2030724406 | 5101 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110022 | 2030730402 | 5211 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821110023 | 6010192404 | 5201 Xerxes Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 1011821140014 | 730523401 | 3001 51ˢᵗ Avenue North | Brooklyn Center |
| 0702824440140 | 6160181400 | 4540 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110004 | 611287401 | 4634 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110006 | 611289403 | 4640 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110007 | 611290400 | 4646 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110008 | 611291403 | 3900 47ᵗʰ Street West | Edina |
| 1802824110077 | 6160187401, 6160187402 | 4620 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110080 | 611285401 | 4624 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110082 | 6160186401 | 4612 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110083 | 611284403, 611284404 | 4610 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110084 | 611283402 | 4608 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110085 | 6160185400 | 4606 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110086 | 6160184401 | 4604 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110087 | 6160183400 | 4602 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824110088 | 6160182400, 6160182401 | 4600 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824140005 | 6160189402 | 4804 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824140007 | 611299402 | 4812 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824140008 | 611300400 | 4824 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824140009 | 611301411 | 4830 France Avenue South | Edina |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1048 -->
| Property ID | Account No. | Street Address | City |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1802824140010 | 611302401 | 4846 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824410061 | 611311402 | 5132 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824410187 | 6160191400 | 5100 France Avenue South 101 | Edina |
| 1802824410262 | 6160219400 | 5120 France Avenue South 101 | Edina |
| 1802824440012 | 611312.401 | 5232 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 1802824440115 | 611313.401 | 5300 France Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824210134 | 511817403 | 3301 54ᵗʰ Street West | Edina |
| 2002824210146 | 6160265402 | 5420 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240001 | 2011410.400 | 5624 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240002 | 2011411.400 | 5628 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240005 | 2011412.402 | 5700 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240006 | 2011413.405 | 5704 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240008 | 2011414.401 | 5712 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240009 | 2011415.401 | 5716 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240010 | 2011416.402 | 5720 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240011 | 2011417.402 | 5724 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240112 | 2011418.402 | 5728 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240013 | 2011419.402 | 5732 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240014 | 2011420.401 | 5736 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240015 | 2011421.401 | 5740 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240107 | 2011405.402 | 5600 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240108 | 2011406.400 | 5604 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240109 | 2011407.401 | 5608 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240110 | 2011408.401 | 5612 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240111 | 2011532.401 | 5616 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824240112 | 2011409.402 | 5620 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310001 | 6160202407 | 5800 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310003 | 6160204401 | 5812 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310007 | 2011425400 | 5832 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310008 | 2011426401 | 5836 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310009 | 2011427402 | 5844 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310010 | 2011428400 | 5848 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310161 | 6160205401 | 5900 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310162 | 2011429400 | 5904 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310163 | 6160206401 | 5908 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310164 | 2011430401 | 5912 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824310165 | 2011431407 | 5916 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |

<!-- page 1049 -->
| Property ID | Account No. | Street Address | City |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 2002824310166 | 6160207400, 6160207401 | 5920 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340004 | 2011434.401 | 6016 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340005 | 2011435.403 | 6020 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340006 | 2011436.402 | 6026 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340007 | 2011437.401 | 6030 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340008 | 2011439.402 | 6036 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340009 | 2011445.403 | 6124 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340010 | 2011446.403 | 6128 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340011 | 2011447.402 | 6132 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340031 | 2011438.402 | 6032 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340032 | 2011440.401 | 6040 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340053 | 6160209401 | 6012 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340060 | 2011441.400 | 6100 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340061 | 2011442.400 | 6104 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340062 | 2011443404 | 6108 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 2002824340121 | 2011444.401 | 6116 Xerxes Avenue South | Edina |
| 1702924240023 | 1911827401 | 1915 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924240024 | 1911828403, 1911828404, 1911828405 | 1917 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924240027 | 1911831401 | 1935 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924240028 | 1911832.400 | 1949 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310004 | 1911824401 | 1707 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310006 | 6020303403, 6020303404 | 1715 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310008 | 1911825400 | 1725 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310035 | 1911841400 | 1611 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310036 | 1911820400 | 1633 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310037 | 6020302403 | 1635 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310038 | 1911821403 | 1639 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310044 | 1911819400 | 1617 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924310057 | 6020301404 | 1631 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924340002 | 1911818400 | 1541 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924340003 | 1911817401 | 1511 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1702924340004 | 1911816402 | 1501 Xerxes Avenue North | Golden Valley |
| 1011821440036 | 6010188401 | 4623 Xerxes Avenue North | Robbinsdale |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1050 -->
| Property ID | Account No. | Street Address | City |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1011821440037 | 2030723400 | 4627 Xerxes Avenue North | Robbinsdale |
| 1011821440038 | 6010187405 | 4617 Xerxes Avenue North | Robbinsdale |
| 1011821440039 | 2030722401 | 4615 Xerxes Avenue North | Robbinsdale |
| 0702824110006 | 511804.400 | 3810 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110007 | 511803.401 | 3808 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110008 | 511805.400 | 3814 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110009 | 511806.401 | 3818 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110010 | 511807.403 | 3824 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110011 | 511808.400 | 3828 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110012 | 511809.401 | 3834 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110013 | 511810.405 | 3838 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110014 | 511811.400 | 3844 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110105 | 511812.402 | 3910 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0702824110107 | 511814.405 | 3930 France Avenue South | St Louis Park |
| 0602923220015 | 6030456402 | 3509 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923230024 | 1431276403, 1431276404 | 3421 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923230026 | 6030453404 | 3415 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923230027 | 1431275404 | 3413 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923230029 | 1431274401 | 3401 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320001 | 1431265401 | 3117 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320031 | 1431269404 | 3207 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320032 | 1431270402 | 3211 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320033 | 1431271400 | 3213 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320034 | 6030449402 | 3219 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320035 | 6030450403, 6030450404 | 3239 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320036 | 1431272400 | 3241 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320037 | 6030451403 | 3245 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320039 | 1431273404 | 3249 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320056 | 6030448401 | 3141 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320057 | 1431266401 | 3137 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0602923320059 | 1431267401 | 3149 Stinson Boulevard Northeast | St. Anthony |
| 0702923220001 | 6030446400 | 2420 St Anthony Boulevard | St. Anthony |

<!-- page 1051 -->
This page intentionally left blank.

<!-- page 1052 -->
# Appendix J – 2017 Stormwater Catchment Inventory

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1053 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 1054 -->
### Summary

| Receiving Water | Area (acres) | Impervious (Percent) | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Percent Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | Right-Of-Way (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreational, or Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Bassett Creek | 1621.227 | 40.62% | 43.07% | 1.24% | 3.48% | 2.13% | 3.88% | 24.25% | 0.00% | 20.37% | 1.57% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Birch Pond | 38.83913 | 10.30% | 0.12% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 99.88% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Brownie Lake | 93.86526 | 40.28% | 30.95% | 0.00% | 0.01% | 28.62% | 0.00% | 18.56% | 0.00% | 18.17% | 3.11% | 0.00% | 0.58% |
| Cedar Lake | 287.8228 | 31.50% | 37.97% | 1.05% | 2.17% | 0.43% | 0.00% | 18.65% | 0.07% | 37.77% | 0.65% | 0.00% | 1.30% |
| Crystal Lake | 420.8843 | 41.74% | 61.97% | 1.74% | 2.61% | 0.72% | 0.00% | 30.27% | 0.00% | 2.68% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Diamond Lake | 663.6601 | 47.77% | 45.57% | 4.01% | 2.19% | 3.57% | 7.93% | 27.81% | 0.00% | 8.91% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Grass Lake | 324.7184 | 43.28% | 59.01% | 0.12% | 3.18% | 2.31% | 0.00% | 29.88% | 0.00% | 4.86% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.64% |
| Hart Lake | 3.328352 | 51.18% | 24.81% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 19.23% | 0.00% | 52.68% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 3.27% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Kenilworth Lagoon | 41.45015 | 28.17% | 57.84% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 18.51% | 0.00% | 22.34% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.30% |
| Lagoon | 93.24384 | 59.97% | 30.19% | 16.39% | 2.52% | 7.61% | 0.00% | 21.19% | 0.00% | 21.83% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.26% |
| Lake Calhoun | 1156.957 | 44.10% | 35.30% | 8.05% | 1.62% | 5.79% | 0.14% | 20.53% | 5.10% | 15.11% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.02% |
| Lake Harriet | 1120.545 | 38.57% | 46.59% | 1.75% | 2.80% | 1.46% | 0.00% | 20.20% | 0.00% | 26.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.12% |
| Lake Hiawatha | 1243.385 | 42.92% | 49.79% | 2.92% | 2.90% | 1.97% | 0.00% | 26.89% | 10.42% | 5.10% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.01% |
| Lake Nokomis | 695.8433 | 35.05% | 47.73% | 0.10% | 2.05% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 22.87% | 0.00% | 26.61% | 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.23% |
| Lake of the Isles | 728.3157 | 45.48% | 41.77% | 10.59% | 2.43% | 3.39% | 0.30% | 24.13% | 0.00% | 17.18% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.22% |
| Legion Lake | 2.128003 | 43.04% | 60.49% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 39.51% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Loring Pond | 27.20128 | 16.25% | 0.00% | 3.14% | 3.48% | 0.07% | 0.00% | 1.34% | 0.00% | 91.49% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.48% |
| Minnehaha Creek | 3347.379 | 38.61% | 52.95% | 0.78% | 3.20% | 1.51% | 0.19% | 24.22% | 0.73% | 15.86% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Mississippi River | 20312.97 | 57.65% | 29.22% | 6.04% | 6.48% | 6.08% | 11.95% | 28.77% | 1.55% | 7.81% | 2.46% | 0.07% | 0.13% |
| Mother Lake | 30.51718 | 45.44% | 25.27% | 0.00% | 1.49% | 0.09% | 0.00% | 63.95% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 9.20% | 0.00% |
| Powderhorn Lake | 322.6616 | 43.50% | 44.26% | 5.70% | 3.69% | 1.64% | 0.00% | 27.08% | 0.00% | 17.54% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.09% |
| Richfield Lake | 57.56983 | 65.03% | 27.22% | 3.44% | 1.02% | 27.66% | 0.07% | 40.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Ryan Lake | 60.61078 | 42.29% | 50.29% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 10.03% | 28.27% | 0.00% | 2.18% | 8.77% | 0.00% | 0.46% |
| Shingle Creek | 1457.685 | 44.66% | 40.50% | 1.20% | 2.30% | 1.08% | 8.78% | 19.90% | 1.17% | 22.17% | 3.75% | 0.00% | 0.33% |
| Silver Lake | 24.98636 | 41.23% | 66.09% | 3.39% | 0.00% | 2.24% | 0.00% | 28.28% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Spring Lake | 49.99404 | 32.63% | 40.24% | 0.27% | 6.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 15.71% | 0.00% | 37.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.25% |
| Taft Lake | 138.9113 | 45.06% | 57.64% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 42.12% | 0.00% | 0.24% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Wirth Lake | 40.58665 | 6.09% | 0.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.20% | 0.00% | 99.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Grand Total | 34407.28 | 50.90% | 36.17% | 4.63% | 4.92% | 4.54% | 7.81% | 26.74% | 1.58% | 11.72% | 1.72% | 0.05% | 0.16% |

<!-- page 1055 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 1056 -->
Detail

| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Direct Watershed | 128.7 | Bassett Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 10.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.9 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 64.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-001A | Pipeshed | 20.9 | Bassett Creek | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-010 | Pipeshed | 711.8 | Bassett Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 60.0 | 1.7 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 29.1 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-020 | Pipeshed | 15.3 | Bassett Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 67.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.5 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-025 | Pipeshed | 1.4 | Bassett Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 43.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.1 | 0.0 | 12.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-030 | Pipeshed | 45.4 | Bassett Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 61.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.4 | 0.0 | 12.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-040 | Pipeshed | 73.3 | Bassett Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 62.4 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 31.9 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-050 | Pipeshed | 6.8 | Bassett Creek | 0.7 | 0.6 | 13.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 86.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-060 | Pipeshed | 2.2 | Bassett Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 65.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.8 | 0.0 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-070 | Pipeshed | 6.0 | Bassett Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 34.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 21.6 | 0.0 | 43.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-080 | Pipeshed | 138.6 | Bassett Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 29.3 | 0.0 | 21.5 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 12.4 | 0.0 | 31.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-090 | Pipeshed | 13.3 | Bassett Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 70.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 26.9 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-095 | Pipeshed | 0.5 | Bassett Creek | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.6 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 61.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-100 | Pipeshed | 23.5 | Bassett Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 35.0 | 9.4 | 7.3 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 23.7 | 0.0 | 23.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-110 | Pipeshed | 5.7 | Bassett Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 61.8 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26.4 | 0.0 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-120 | Pipeshed | 55.2 | Bassett Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 60.2 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 32.3 | 0.0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-130 | Pipeshed | 32.1 | Bassett Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 52.7 | 7.9 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 35.6 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-140 | Pipeshed | 244.9 | Bassett Creek | 0.3 | 0.3 | 19.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 23.6 | 0.0 | 44.9 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-145 | Pipeshed | 4.7 | Bassett Creek | 0.7 | 0.7 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 94.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-150 | Pipeshed | 23.9 | Bassett Creek | 0.6 | 0.5 | 34.3 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.1 | 25.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 40-155 | Pipeshed | 67.0 | Bassett Creek | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.0 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 43.2 | 8.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 22.9 | Birch Pond | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 81-010PB | Pipeshed | 15.9 | Birch Pond | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 24.6 | Brownie Lake | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.4 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 56.2 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 2.2 |
| 51-010(B)DOT | Pipeshed | 3.7 | Brownie Lake | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.7 | 0.0 | 34.7 | 0.0 | 14.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 51-010(C) | Pipeshed | 25.9 | Brownie Lake | 0.4 | 0.2 | 67.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 27.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 51-020 | Pipeshed | 12.2 | Brownie Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 68.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.6 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 51-030 | Pipeshed | 16.6 | Brownie Lake | 0.5 | 0.5 | 17.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 37.4 | 0.0 | 19.9 | 0.0 | 14.6 | 10.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 51-040 | Pipeshed | 0.9 | Brownie Lake | 0.6 | 0.4 | 24.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.4 | 0.0 | 15.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1057 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 51-050 | Pipeshed | 10.1 | Brownie Lake | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 87.7 | 0.0 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 71.5 | Cedar Lake | 0.1 | 0.1 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 82.3 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 5.2 |
| 52-010 | Pipeshed | 52.7 | Cedar Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 40.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.7 | 0.0 | 42.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-030 | Pipeshed | 4.1 | Cedar Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 70.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-040 | Pipeshed | 3.5 | Cedar Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 31.4 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.5 | 0.0 | 33.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-050 | Pipeshed | 17.8 | Cedar Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 42.5 | 6.9 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 15.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-070 | Pipeshed | 64.7 | Cedar Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 58.2 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 33.9 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-075 | Pipeshed | 13.1 | Cedar Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 13.2 | 0.0 | 23.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.6 | 0.0 | 54.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-080 | Pipeshed | 8.9 | Cedar Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 26.5 | 0.0 | 22.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 0.0 | 44.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-100 | Pipeshed | 10.2 | Cedar Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 42.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.2 | 0.0 | 42.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-110 | Pipeshed | 27.4 | Cedar Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 58.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.9 | 0.0 | 23.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-120 | Pipeshed | 13.9 | Cedar Lake | 0.4 | 0.2 | 64.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.4 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 63-010 | Pipeshed | 420.9 | Crystal Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 62.0 | 1.7 | 2.6 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 30.3 | 0.0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 28.9 | Diamond Lake | 0.1 | 0.1 | 53.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 38.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-020 | Pipeshed | 15.5 | Diamond Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 66.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.7 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-030 | Pipeshed | 29.9 | Diamond Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 61.0 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 27.4 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-040 | Pipeshed | 17.3 | Diamond Lake | 0.2 | 0.1 | 29.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 59.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-050 | Pipeshed | 122.3 | Diamond Lake | 0.4 | 0.2 | 62.3 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 30.7 | 0.0 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-060 | Pipeshed | 4.2 | Diamond Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 69.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 25.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-070 (A) | Pipeshed | 260.6 | Diamond Lake | 0.6 | 0.5 | 31.9 | 8.2 | 2.5 | 7.0 | 20.2 | 20.2 | 0.0 | 9.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-070 (B) | Pipeshed | 74.4 | Diamond Lake | 0.5 | 0.4 | 50.9 | 3.5 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 41.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-080 (A) | Pipeshed | 40.8 | Diamond Lake | 0.7 | 0.7 | 25.9 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 69.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-080 (B) | Pipeshed | 62.6 | Diamond Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 64.3 | 1.9 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 29.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-090 | Pipeshed | 4.3 | Diamond Lake | 0.4 | 0.2 | 55.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 71-100 | Pipeshed | 2.7 | Diamond Lake | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 6.6 | Grass Lake | 0.1 | 0.1 | 10.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.3 |
| 83-010DOT | Pipeshed | 23.4 | Grass Lake | 0.7 | 0.6 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.2 | 0.0 | 47.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 83-012 | Pipeshed | 1.1 | Grass Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 32.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.6 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 83-015 | Pipeshed | 0.9 | Grass Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 74.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.6 | 0.0 | 15.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 83-020 (B) | Pipeshed | 55.1 | Grass Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 72.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 26.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1058 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 83-030 | Pipeshed | 1.4 | Grass Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 68.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.3 | 0.0 | 12.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 83-040 | Pipeshed | 1.1 | Grass Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 67.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.8 | 0.0 | 14.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 83-050 | Pipeshed | 31.5 | Grass Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 71.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.4 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 83-060 | Pipeshed | 8.5 | Grass Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 81.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.8 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 83-070 | Pipeshed | 1.6 | Grass Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 51.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.1 | 0.0 | 19.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 |
| 83-080 | Pipeshed | 193.5 | Grass Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 57.7 | 0.2 | 5.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 30.3 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 61-010CH | Pipeshed | 3.3 | Hart Lake | 0.5 | 0.4 | 24.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.2 | 0.0 | 52.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 52-020 | Pipeshed | 4.2 | Kenilworth Lagoon | 0.3 | 0.2 | 63.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.6 | 0.0 | 5.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-010 | Pipeshed | 5.4 | Kenilworth Lagoon | 0.5 | 0.3 | 65.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 32.5 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-030 (A) | Pipeshed | 11.6 | Kenilworth Lagoon | 0.3 | 0.2 | 66.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.9 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 20.3 | Kenilworth Lagoon | 0.2 | 0.1 | 49.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 42.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.7 |
| 54-010 | Pipeshed | 87.5 | Lagoon | 0.6 | 0.5 | 32.2 | 17.5 | 2.7 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 22.6 | 0.0 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-215 | Pipeshed | 0.3 | Lagoon | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 5.4 | Lagoon | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 96.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 |
| | Direct Watershed | 56.7 | Lake Calhoun | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 |
| 54-040 | Pipeshed | 232.6 | Lake Calhoun | 0.6 | 0.5 | 37.6 | 11.4 | 2.6 | 14.4 | 0.7 | 31.2 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-050 (A) | Pipeshed | 27.9 | Lake Calhoun | 0.3 | 0.2 | 12.1 | 5.3 | 6.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 67.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-052 | Pipeshed | 3.2 | Lake Calhoun | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-055 (A) | Pipeshed | 13.8 | Lake Calhoun | 0.2 | 0.1 | 31.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.7 | 0.0 | 57.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-060 | Pipeshed | 9.6 | Lake Calhoun | 0.4 | 0.3 | 58.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.2 | 0.0 | 24.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-070 | Pipeshed | 52.4 | Lake Calhoun | 0.5 | 0.3 | 64.1 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.2 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-080 | Pipeshed | 435.3 | Lake Calhoun | 0.4 | 0.3 | 54.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 24.2 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-090 | Pipeshed | 1.1 | Lake Calhoun | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-095 | Pipeshed | 10.3 | Lake Calhoun | 0.4 | 0.3 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.9 | 0.0 | 30.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-100 | Pipeshed | 83.8 | Lake Calhoun | 0.1 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-110 | Pipeshed | 25.1 | Lake Calhoun | 0.2 | 0.1 | 26.6 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.9 | 0.5 | 5.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-115 | Pipeshed | 0.0 | Lake Calhoun | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 52.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 47.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-120 | Pipeshed | 15.2 | Lake Calhoun | 0.4 | 0.2 | 15.2 | 8.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.1 | 0.5 | 15.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-130 | Pipeshed | 0.4 | Lake Calhoun | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-140 (A) | Pipeshed | 113.9 | Lake Calhoun | 0.6 | 0.5 | 4.8 | 32.4 | 0.5 | 16.2 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 0.1 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1059 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 54-140 (B) | Pipeshed | 8.4 | Lake Calhoun | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 41.8 | 0.0 | 16.2 | 0.0 | 42.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-150 | Pipeshed | 54.7 | Lake Calhoun | 0.5 | 0.3 | 24.8 | 29.1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 32.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-160 | Pipeshed | 1.9 | Lake Calhoun | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 69.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.1 | 0.0 | 11.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-170 | Pipeshed | 6.2 | Lake Calhoun | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 8.8 | 0.0 | 23.1 | 0.0 | 16.4 | 0.0 | 51.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-180PB | Pipeshed | 1.4 | Lake Calhoun | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-190 | Pipeshed | 1.8 | Lake Calhoun | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-200 | Pipeshed | 0.9 | Lake Calhoun | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 54-210 | Pipeshed | 0.3 | Lake Calhoun | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 23.8 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 90.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.7 |
| 57-005 | Pipeshed | 73.4 | Lake Harriet | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-010 | Pipeshed | 25.1 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.4 | 0.0 | 34.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| 57-015 | Pipeshed | 0.0 | Lake Harriet | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-020 | Pipeshed | 157.3 | Lake Harriet | 0.5 | 0.3 | 63.2 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 29.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-030 | Pipeshed | 13.4 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 52.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.2 | 0.0 | 23.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-040 | Pipeshed | 38.2 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 71.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.9 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-050 | Pipeshed | 4.0 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 54.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.3 | 0.0 | 20.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-060 | Pipeshed | 27.2 | Lake Harriet | 0.5 | 0.3 | 67.1 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 27.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-070 | Pipeshed | 81.4 | Lake Harriet | 0.4 | 0.3 | 69.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-080 | Pipeshed | 6.8 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 77.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.8 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-090 (A) | Pipeshed | 23.5 | Lake Harriet | 0.4 | 0.3 | 69.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-090 (B) | Pipeshed | 3.0 | Lake Harriet | 0.4 | 0.2 | 52.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.1 | 0.0 | 14.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-095 | Pipeshed | 4.9 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 87.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.4 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-100 (A) | Pipeshed | 360.8 | Lake Harriet | 0.5 | 0.3 | 60.0 | 0.7 | 5.9 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 27.2 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-110 | Pipeshed | 26.3 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.2 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.4 | 0.0 | 36.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-120 | Pipeshed | 49.9 | Lake Harriet | 0.6 | 0.4 | 38.4 | 22.6 | 8.8 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 22.9 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-130 | Pipeshed | 1.8 | Lake Harriet | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-140 | Pipeshed | 3.8 | Lake Harriet | 0.5 | 0.3 | 11.9 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.4 | 0.0 | 63.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-150 | Pipeshed | 23.3 | Lake Harriet | 0.4 | 0.2 | 61.8 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.5 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-160 | Pipeshed | 21.0 | Lake Harriet | 0.3 | 0.2 | 36.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 58.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 57-170 | Pipeshed | 151.6 | Lake Harriet | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 93.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.8 |

<!-- page 1060 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Direct Watershed | 26.5 | Lake Hiawatha | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 80.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 |
| 76-005 (A) | Pipeshed | 195.9 | Lake Hiawatha | 0.2 | 0.1 | 23.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 76-010 | Pipeshed | 920.2 | Lake Hiawatha | 0.5 | 0.3 | 55.8 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 30.3 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 76-020 | Pipeshed | 88.4 | Lake Hiawatha | 0.4 | 0.3 | 61.3 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 30.2 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 76-030 | Pipeshed | 7.6 | Lake Hiawatha | 0.6 | 0.4 | 44.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.6 | 0.0 | 31.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 76-040 | Pipeshed | 3.4 | Lake Hiawatha | 0.5 | 0.3 | 55.1 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.8 | 0.0 | 7.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 76-050 | Pipeshed | 1.4 | Lake Hiawatha | 0.7 | 0.4 | 40.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.2 | 0.0 | 24.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 43.5 | Lake Nokomis | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 |
| 72-010 | Pipeshed | 14.3 | Lake Nokomis | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-020 | Pipeshed | 21.7 | Lake Nokomis | 0.5 | 0.3 | 52.1 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 27.4 | 0.0 | 14.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-030 | Pipeshed | 10.3 | Lake Nokomis | 0.2 | 0.1 | 13.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 86.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-040 (A) | Pipeshed | 149.0 | Lake Nokomis | 0.4 | 0.3 | 63.2 | 0.2 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 29.0 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-050 | Pipeshed | 2.7 | Lake Nokomis | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-055(B)PB | Pipeshed | 114.1 | Lake Nokomis | 0.3 | 0.2 | 49.2 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.7 | 0.0 | 23.9 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| 72-090 | Pipeshed | 92.9 | Lake Nokomis | 0.3 | 0.2 | 48.6 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 25.2 | 0.0 | 24.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 |
| 72-115(A)PB | Pipeshed | 148.7 | Lake Nokomis | 0.3 | 0.2 | 52.4 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.3 | 0.0 | 19.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-125PB | Pipeshed | 78.5 | Lake Nokomis | 0.4 | 0.2 | 58.6 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 27.6 | 0.0 | 11.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-130 | Pipeshed | 1.6 | Lake Nokomis | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 59.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 39.9 |
| 72-140 | Pipeshed | 13.1 | Lake Nokomis | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 98.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-150 | Pipeshed | 3.8 | Lake Nokomis | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 72-160 | Pipeshed | 1.7 | Lake Nokomis | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-020 | Pipeshed | 8.5 | Lake of the Isles | 0.5 | 0.3 | 59.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-040 | Pipeshed | 2.4 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.3 | 66.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.9 | 0.0 | 13.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-050 | Pipeshed | 12.5 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.2 | 71.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.8 | 0.0 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-060 | Pipeshed | 18.7 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.2 | 65.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 28.4 | 0.0 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-070 | Pipeshed | 2.5 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.2 | 51.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26.3 | 0.0 | 21.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-080 | Pipeshed | 10.0 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.2 | 62.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.4 | 0.0 | 16.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-090 | Pipeshed | 44.7 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.2 | 66.7 | 0.6 | 3.2 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 25.5 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-100 | Pipeshed | 114.8 | Lake of the Isles | 0.3 | 0.2 | 42.9 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.6 | 0.0 | 35.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-110 | Pipeshed | 4.5 | Lake of the Isles | 0.3 | 0.2 | 45.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.1 | 0.0 | 44.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1061 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 53-120 | Pipeshed | 92.0 | Lake of the Isles | 0.5 | 0.3 | 55.9 | 10.5 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 28.2 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-130 | Pipeshed | 7.8 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.2 | 71.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.8 | 0.0 | 12.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-140 | Pipeshed | 3.8 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.3 | 69.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.3 | 0.0 | 10.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-150 | Pipeshed | 138.6 | Lake of the Isles | 0.6 | 0.4 | 40.4 | 15.1 | 4.0 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 31.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-160 | Pipeshed | 193.1 | Lake of the Isles | 0.6 | 0.4 | 32.5 | 23.7 | 3.5 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 27.8 | 0.0 | 5.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-170 | Pipeshed | 6.0 | Lake of the Isles | 0.4 | 0.3 | 57.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.3 | 0.0 | 21.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-180 | Pipeshed | 0.6 | Lake of the Isles | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 53-190 | Pipeshed | 7.0 | Lake of the Isles | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.2 | 0.0 | 36.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 60.7 | Lake of the Isles | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 93.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.7 |
| 64-110 | Pipeshed | 2.1 | Legion Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 60.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 39.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 20.0 | Loring Pond | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 99.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 |
| 45-010 | Pipeshed | 0.0 | Loring Pond | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 45-020 | Pipeshed | 2.2 | Loring Pond | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 39.3 | 43.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 14.7 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 45-030 | Pipeshed | 5.0 | Loring Pond | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 286.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.2 | 0.1 | 10.8 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 72.7 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-005ED | Pipeshed | 3.9 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.6 | 0.4 | 57.3 | 0.1 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-010ED | Pipeshed | 4.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 60.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 34.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-015 | Pipeshed | 9.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 66.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 32.4 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-020 | Pipeshed | 33.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 71.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-025 | Pipeshed | 0.9 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.6 | 0.3 | 45.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 54.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-030 | Pipeshed | 10.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 69.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-035 | Pipeshed | 5.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 76.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.9 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-040 | Pipeshed | 2.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 67.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.5 | 0.0 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-050 | Pipeshed | 12.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.2 | 0.1 | 72.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-055 | Pipeshed | 319.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 62.6 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 27.2 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-060 | Pipeshed | 0.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 34.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.4 | 0.0 | 59.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-065 | Pipeshed | 11.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.2 | 0.2 | 83.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-075 | Pipeshed | 2.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 59.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-080 | Pipeshed | 8.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 53.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 36.6 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-085 | Pipeshed | 228.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 69.4 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 28.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1062 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 70-090 | Pipeshed | 14.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 64.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-100 | Pipeshed | 7.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 64.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-130 | Pipeshed | 81.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 56.6 | 0.0 | 10.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.4 | 0.0 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-150 | Pipeshed | 8.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 56.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 0.0 | 37.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-152 | Pipeshed | 0.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 45.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.8 | 0.0 | 19.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-153 | Pipeshed | 0.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.6 | 0.4 | 20.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.3 | 0.0 | 39.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-157 | Pipeshed | 1.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 30.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.1 | 0.0 | 35.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-165 | Pipeshed | 25.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 69.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.4 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-167 | Pipeshed | 2.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.2 | 0.1 | 29.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 37.0 | 0.0 | 33.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-170 | Pipeshed | 28.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 56.7 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.8 | 0.0 | 19.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-175 | Pipeshed | 34.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 55.1 | 0.6 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 28.0 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-180 | Pipeshed | 57.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 68.3 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-185 | Pipeshed | 1.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 37.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 60.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-190 | Pipeshed | 11.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 67.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.7 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-200 | Pipeshed | 44.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 67.9 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.0 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-225 | Pipeshed | 11.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 66.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.1 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-240 | Pipeshed | 5.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 70.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.6 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-245 | Pipeshed | 10.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 67.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.0 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-250 | Pipeshed | 3.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 71.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.0 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-253 | Pipeshed | 71.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.4 | 47.9 | 2.3 | 4.8 | 14.0 | 0.0 | 30.2 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-255 (A) | Pipeshed | 3.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.1 | 0.1 | 92.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-255 (B) | Pipeshed | 39.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 69.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 28.4 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-260 (A) | Pipeshed | 0.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-260 (B) | Pipeshed | 22.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 66.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 27.7 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-265 (A) | Pipeshed | 14.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 74.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.9 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-265 (B) | Pipeshed | 137.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 59.0 | 4.2 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 26.2 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-270 | Pipeshed | 4.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.2 | 0.1 | 76.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.9 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-275 | Pipeshed | 5.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 19.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 11.5 | 0.0 | 67.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-280 | Pipeshed | 8.9 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 72.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.0 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-285 | Pipeshed | 14.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 72.7 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1063 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 70-290 | Pipeshed | 4.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 76.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.8 | 0.0 | 8.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-295 | Pipeshed | 2.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.2 | 0.1 | 27.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 70.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-300 | Pipeshed | 3.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 49.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.9 | 0.0 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-305 | Pipeshed | 12.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 71.3 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.1 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-307 | Pipeshed | 0.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 19.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 80.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-310 | Pipeshed | 3.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.2 | 0.1 | 72.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-315 | Pipeshed | 10.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.4 | 0.0 | 36.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-320 | Pipeshed | 25.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 71.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.4 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-325 | Pipeshed | 1.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 89.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-330 | Pipeshed | 262.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 56.9 | 0.4 | 11.7 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 30.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-335 | Pipeshed | 1.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.4 | 0.0 | 64.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-340 | Pipeshed | 0.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-345 | Pipeshed | 4.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 60.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.4 | 0.0 | 11.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-350 | Pipeshed | 236.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 44.5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 24.0 | 0.0 | 27.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-355 | Pipeshed | 1.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 48.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.1 | 0.0 | 20.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-360 | Pipeshed | 138.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 51.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 23.2 | 0.0 | 23.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-365 | Pipeshed | 5.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 60.4 | 0.0 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-370 | Pipeshed | 3.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 56.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.6 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-375 | Pipeshed | 5.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 52.6 | 0.0 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.7 | 0.0 | 5.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-380 | Pipeshed | 14.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 67.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.8 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-385 | Pipeshed | 20.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 64.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.6 | 0.0 | 9.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-390 (B) | Pipeshed | 54.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 61.8 | 0.0 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 32.1 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-395 | Pipeshed | 50.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 66.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.7 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-400 | Pipeshed | 7.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 65.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.5 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-405 | Pipeshed | 3.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 45.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.7 | 0.0 | 13.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-407 | Pipeshed | 0.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 97.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-408 | Pipeshed | 1.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 97.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-410 | Pipeshed | 4.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 47.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.4 | 0.0 | 19.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-415 | Pipeshed | 105.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 46.8 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 24.2 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-420 | Pipeshed | 12.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 64.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1064 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 70-425PB | Pipeshed | 19.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 20.9 | 0.6 | 5.9 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 19.3 | 0.0 | 39.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-427 | Pipeshed | 29.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.1 | 0.1 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 76.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-430 | Pipeshed | 2.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 91.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-435 | Pipeshed | 7.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 97.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-440 | Pipeshed | 28.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.6 | 0.4 | 43.6 | 1.2 | 11.6 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 30.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-443PB | Pipeshed | 13.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.9 | 7.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-445 | Pipeshed | 5.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 52.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.9 | 0.0 | 25.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-446 | Pipeshed | 0.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-447 | Pipeshed | 1.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.7 | 0.4 | 50.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.6 | 0.0 | 13.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-449 | Pipeshed | 0.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-450 | Pipeshed | 0.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.7 | 0.4 | 28.1 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 54.8 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-465 | Pipeshed | 2.9 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 66.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.9 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-467 | Pipeshed | 0.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.7 | 0.5 | 14.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.7 | 0.0 | 75.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-470 | Pipeshed | 6.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 66.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.9 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-475 | Pipeshed | 229.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 60.7 | 1.9 | 7.1 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 28.9 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-477 | Pipeshed | 1.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 45.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 49.6 | 0.0 | 5.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-479 | Pipeshed | 2.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 69.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.8 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-480 | Pipeshed | 0.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.9 | 0.0 | 84.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-485 | Pipeshed | 6.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 68.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-490 (A) | Pipeshed | 48.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 55.5 | 0.2 | 14.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-495 | Pipeshed | 8.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.4 | 0.0 | 28.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-500 | Pipeshed | 0.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 46.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.1 | 0.0 | 17.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-505 | Pipeshed | 6.9 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 65.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.1 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-510 | Pipeshed | 35.9 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 50.2 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 20.2 | 0.0 | 25.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-515 | Pipeshed | 66.6 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 54.3 | 4.4 | 3.3 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 27.8 | 0.0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-520 | Pipeshed | 4.1 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 47.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.3 | 0.0 | 20.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-525 | Pipeshed | 4.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 54.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.8 | 0.0 | 23.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-530 | Pipeshed | 1.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 70.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 27.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-535 | Pipeshed | 23.5 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 59.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 29.7 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-540 | Pipeshed | 5.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 69.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.6 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1065 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 70-545 | Pipeshed | 2.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 48.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.4 | 0.0 | 21.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-550 | Pipeshed | 2.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 47.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.4 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-555 | Pipeshed | 0.8 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 90.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-560 | Pipeshed | 4.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 54.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.8 | 0.0 | 25.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-570 | Pipeshed | 1.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 60.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.1 | 0.0 | 15.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-575 | Pipeshed | 16.3 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 72.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.1 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-576 | Pipeshed | 3.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-577PB | Pipeshed | 1.0 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-578PB | Pipeshed | 3.2 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-579PB | Pipeshed | 0.7 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 70-580 | Pipeshed | 137.4 | Minnehaha Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 40.6 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 22.1 | 0.0 | 30.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-010DOT | Pipeshed | 84.5 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 52.2 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 34.3 | 0.0 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-015PB | Pipeshed | 0.8 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-020PB | Pipeshed | 2.4 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 99.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-030PB | Pipeshed | 8.3 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 99.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-040DOT | Pipeshed | 160.4 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 39.5 | 0.0 | 7.6 | 0.7 | 4.2 | 39.1 | 0.0 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-050 | Pipeshed | 116.9 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.3 | 57.5 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 3.5 | 6.8 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-055PB | Pipeshed | 1.8 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.4 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 60.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-060 | Pipeshed | 6.5 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 68.6 | 31.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-065PB | Pipeshed | 0.3 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-067PB | Pipeshed | 26.0 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 91.8 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 7.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-070PB | Pipeshed | 15.4 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 87.3 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| 10-073 | Pipeshed | 65.2 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 84.1 | 15.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-074PRV | Pipeshed | 10.9 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 65.9 | 14.7 | 0.0 | 13.1 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-077 | Pipeshed | 1.1 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 60.9 | 39.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-085PRV | Pipeshed | 1.9 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-090(A)PRV | Pipeshed | 2.9 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 97.7 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| 10-090(B)PRV | Pipeshed | 8.6 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 81.0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.3 | 0.0 | 1.2 |
| 10-090(C)PRV | Pipeshed | 7.6 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 81.4 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-090(D)PRV | Pipeshed | 7.2 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 90.3 | 8.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1066 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 10-100 | Pipeshed | 1466.7 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.4 | 34.9 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 15.1 | 21.0 | 0.1 | 5.0 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-110 (A) | Pipeshed | 292.4 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.3 | 46.6 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 3.2 | 36.9 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-115PB | Pipeshed | 2.9 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-117PB | Pipeshed | 0.1 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-120 (C) | Pipeshed | 0.8 | Mississippi River | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-120(a) | Pipeshed | 103.8 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 34.9 | 2.3 | 4.3 | 2.7 | 22.7 | 25.2 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-120(b) | Pipeshed | 256.8 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 57.7 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 5.2 | 28.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-130 | Pipeshed | 322.2 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 24.3 | 1.0 | 3.9 | 2.6 | 27.7 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 23.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-140(a) | Pipeshed | 3.4 | Mississippi River | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 86.4 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.3 |
| 10-145 | Pipeshed | 10.9 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.8 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.7 | 34.2 | 40.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 7.7 |
| 10-150 | Pipeshed | 148.4 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 41.3 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 7.4 | 17.0 | 28.8 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.6 |
| 10-160 | Pipeshed | 20.8 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-170 | Pipeshed | 167.6 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 34.6 | 4.3 | 5.8 | 3.6 | 15.3 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 7.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-180 | Pipeshed | 276.1 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 43.9 | 6.7 | 5.1 | 3.6 | 4.3 | 29.2 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-183PB | Pipeshed | 1.4 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-185PRV | Pipeshed | 11.1 | Mississippi River | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 92.2 | 7.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-190 | Pipeshed | 26.9 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 76.5 | 21.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-200 | Pipeshed | 47.4 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 22.7 | 0.2 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 27.2 | 19.5 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 18.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-210 (A) | Pipeshed | 2.2 | Mississippi River | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 84.6 | 15.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-210 (B) | Pipeshed | 87.6 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 34.3 | 0.6 | 6.7 | 2.0 | 22.4 | 23.5 | 0.0 | 9.7 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-220 | Pipeshed | 17.5 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 11.1 | 38.7 | 11.1 | 5.0 | 16.9 | 0.0 | 17.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-230 | Pipeshed | 231.0 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 45.3 | 2.9 | 7.8 | 3.7 | 9.0 | 31.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-240 | Pipeshed | 115.3 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 15.7 | 5.0 | 4.3 | 20.2 | 15.8 | 35.5 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 |
| 10-250 | Pipeshed | 245.1 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.4 | 37.8 | 8.1 | 7.5 | 6.6 | 11.2 | 28.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| 10-260 | Pipeshed | 16.5 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.9 | 36.4 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-270 | Pipeshed | 71.4 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 31.6 | 8.2 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 22.8 | 30.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-280 | Pipeshed | 44.5 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 70.0 | 28.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-290 | Pipeshed | 17.8 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 53.8 | 14.5 | 0.0 | 29.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.5 |
| 10-295 | Pipeshed | 851.1 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 17.5 | 16.8 | 7.8 | 5.0 | 18.4 | 30.7 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-297 | Pipeshed | 3.2 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 81.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 10.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1067 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 10-300 | Pipeshed | 1.4 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.8 | 0.0 | 39.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 41.6 |
| 10-305 | Pipeshed | 23.9 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 36.9 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 5.1 | 22.7 | 0.0 | 30.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-310(B) | Pipeshed | 66.0 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 34.2 | 6.0 | 8.4 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 25.4 | 0.0 | 25.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-315 | Pipeshed | 3.0 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 17.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 75.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-316 | Pipeshed | 6.5 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.2 | 26.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 63.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-320 | Pipeshed | 394.3 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 37.0 | 7.3 | 4.7 | 4.0 | 12.3 | 24.4 | 0.0 | 5.5 | 4.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-325 | Pipeshed | 2.6 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 38.4 | 11.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 41.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-330 | Pipeshed | 30.8 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.5 | 59.2 | 12.8 | 1.2 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-340 | Pipeshed | 7.0 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 84.7 | 1.5 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-345 | Pipeshed | 5.3 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 35.5 | 34.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.5 | 0.0 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-350 | Pipeshed | 30.9 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 9.8 | 23.0 | 0.0 | 26.6 | 9.1 | 29.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 |
| 10-360 | Pipeshed | 16.1 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 32.5 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 22.8 | 0.0 | 29.8 | 5.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-370 | Pipeshed | 11.9 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 27.0 | 4.6 | 20.7 | 0.0 | 32.1 | 0.0 | 14.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| 10-373 | Pipeshed | 0.9 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 32.9 | 0.0 | 57.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.9 |
| 10-375PB | Pipeshed | 1.3 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.6 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 16.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-380 | Pipeshed | 20.4 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 15.3 | 41.4 | 10.2 | 0.0 | 14.5 | 0.0 | 16.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.5 |
| 10-390 (B) | Pipeshed | 18.7 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 6.3 | 19.1 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 39.4 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 13.5 | 6.1 | 0.0 | 0.7 |
| 10-390(A)PRV | Pipeshed | 30.1 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 20.4 | 0.0 | 24.5 | 16.1 | 26.3 | 0.0 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.3 |
| 10-395 | Pipeshed | 16.1 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 33.1 | 9.7 | 19.7 | 0.1 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 26.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-395PB | Pipeshed | 2.9 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 94.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.4 |
| 10-397 | Pipeshed | 2.8 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 65.1 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 33.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 |
| 10-400DOT | Pipeshed | 809.4 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 17.5 | 3.2 | 8.0 | 10.5 | 10.6 | 42.1 | 0.0 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-410 | Pipeshed | 349.7 | Mississippi River | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 3.8 | 8.6 | 49.4 | 0.1 | 35.8 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-420 | Pipeshed | 192.7 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 7.3 | 16.1 | 32.3 | 5.7 | 29.3 | 0.0 | 7.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-430DOT | Pipeshed | 3188.7 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 30.1 | 12.4 | 5.8 | 7.8 | 0.8 | 36.8 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-440DOT | Pipeshed | 1273.1 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 33.3 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 4.4 | 7.9 | 33.5 | 0.1 | 16.1 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-450 | Pipeshed | 1020.8 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 17.8 | 9.1 | 5.6 | 7.4 | 25.3 | 24.1 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-455 | Pipeshed | 6.7 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 43.9 | 27.6 | 0.0 | 25.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-460 | Pipeshed | 827.0 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.7 | 14.6 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 5.1 | 49.0 | 20.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-465PB | Pipeshed | 19.6 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 17.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.9 | 0.0 | 68.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1068 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 10-470 | Pipeshed | 10.3 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 83.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-475 | Pipeshed | 0.2 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-480 | Pipeshed | 26.8 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 11.1 | 46.7 | 8.6 | 0.0 | 22.2 | 0.0 | 11.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-485 | Pipeshed | 12.6 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 70.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 29.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-487 | Pipeshed | 2.3 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 68.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.7 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-488 | Pipeshed | 3.4 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 63.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.6 | 0.0 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-489 | Pipeshed | 2.3 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 99.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-490 | Pipeshed | 138.9 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 5.1 | 25.3 | 24.9 | 9.5 | 0.5 | 28.4 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-500 | Pipeshed | 636.8 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 29.3 | 13.7 | 7.6 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 34.1 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-505 | Pipeshed | 8.6 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 51.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.3 | 0.0 | 37.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-506 | Pipeshed | 2.1 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 85.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-507 | Pipeshed | 6.1 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 95.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-508 | Pipeshed | 0.1 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-510 | Pipeshed | 55.4 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 4.5 | 5.7 | 46.5 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 27.6 | 0.0 | 10.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-511 | Pipeshed | 2.5 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 98.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 |
| 10-512 | Pipeshed | 3.0 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| 10-513 | Pipeshed | 6.4 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-515 | Pipeshed | 14.1 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.4 | 0.0 | 93.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-530 | Pipeshed | 200.9 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 63.2 | 3.6 | 6.4 | 16.4 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-540DOT | Pipeshed | 34.8 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 54.1 | 0.0 | 39.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-550 | Pipeshed | 23.1 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 36.3 | 20.1 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 32.2 | 0.0 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-560 | Pipeshed | 331.8 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 2.9 | 7.6 | 10.0 | 6.5 | 46.3 | 15.1 | 0.2 | 3.4 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-565 | Pipeshed | 152.0 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 26.0 | 10.1 | 3.4 | 9.1 | 2.5 | 40.6 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-568 | Pipeshed | 23.3 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.4 | 40.9 | 6.9 | 13.5 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 25.7 | 0.0 | 9.7 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-570 | Pipeshed | 218.5 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 39.4 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 7.2 | 7.5 | 30.4 | 0.0 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-580 | Pipeshed | 8.4 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 78.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.7 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-600 | Pipeshed | 126.2 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 62.0 | 1.4 | 3.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 29.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-605 | Pipeshed | 2.5 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 80.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 19.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-607 | Pipeshed | 1.8 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 38.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 61.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-610 | Pipeshed | 40.5 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 51.9 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 2.4 | 32.6 | 0.0 | 10.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1069 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 10-615 | Pipeshed | 15.1 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.3 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 28.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 16.2 | 43.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-630DOT | Pipeshed | 989.1 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 26.8 | 4.9 | 7.4 | 12.4 | 11.2 | 28.0 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-640 | Pipeshed | 271.8 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.3 | 54.3 | 3.3 | 5.8 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 29.9 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-660 | Pipeshed | 297.7 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 59.6 | 0.9 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 28.1 | 0.0 | 6.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-670 | Pipeshed | 144.7 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.2 | 65.5 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-680 | Pipeshed | 666.5 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 48.9 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 6.5 | 33.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-690 | Pipeshed | 68.5 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 39.9 | 0.0 | 33.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.4 | 0.0 | 10.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-700 | Pipeshed | 214.4 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.3 | 55.9 | 4.8 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 4.0 | 28.4 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-710 | Pipeshed | 38.3 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 35.7 | 1.7 | 10.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 39.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-712 | Pipeshed | 0.2 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-720 | Pipeshed | 1009.9 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.3 | 50.3 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 30.7 | 0.0 | 6.9 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 0.0 |
| 10-800 | Pipeshed | 2.3 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 97.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-005UM | Pipeshed | 3.2 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 92.3 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-010UM | Pipeshed | 2.4 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 93.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-020UM | Pipeshed | 0.2 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 80.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-030UM | Pipeshed | 0.2 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-040UM | Pipeshed | 3.7 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 92.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-045UM | Pipeshed | 0.5 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 96.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 |
| 15-050UM | Pipeshed | 28.8 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 50.4 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 41.3 | 0.0 | 0.4 |
| 15-060UM | Pipeshed | 0.7 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-070UM | Pipeshed | 4.8 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 94.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-080UM | Pipeshed | 13.5 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 97.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-100UM | Pipeshed | 11.9 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 72.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.5 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-110UM | Pipeshed | 3.1 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 58.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 38.7 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-120UM | Pipeshed | 2.1 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 68.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-130UM | Pipeshed | 7.7 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-140UM | Pipeshed | 0.4 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 72.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-145UM | Pipeshed | 28.6 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 83.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-150UM | Pipeshed | 4.0 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 59.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 32.1 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 15-160UM | Pipeshed | 8.4 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 90.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1070 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 15-170UM | Pipeshed | 1.7 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 10-080PRV | Pipeshed | 23.0 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 81.0 | 6.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 15.8 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 94.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 120.7 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 94.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 81.8 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 80.5 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 2.9 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.3 | Mississippi River | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 3.1 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 68.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 19.3 |
| | Direct Watershed | 1.8 | Mississippi River | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.7 | 12.1 | 0.0 | 44.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 4.5 |
| | Direct Watershed | 10.0 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 31.1 | 0.0 | 55.6 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 1.3 |
| | Direct Watershed | 41.2 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.8 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 71.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 |
| | Direct Watershed | 1.8 | Mississippi River | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 44.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 55.3 |
| | Direct Watershed | 1.1 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 66.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.7 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.6 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 |
| | Direct Watershed | 5.8 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.9 | 0.0 | 80.8 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 12.7 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.7 | 9.7 | 0.0 | 34.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.3 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.9 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 95.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.8 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.5 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 99.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.4 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 91.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.1 |
| | Direct Watershed | 1.3 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 44.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 52.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 1.3 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.3 | 46.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 52.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 14.8 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 9.6 | 0.0 | 77.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 2.5 |
| | Direct Watershed | 13.7 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 97.3 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 2.2 |
| | Direct Watershed | 2.6 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.5 | 5.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 38.8 | 0.0 | 36.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 10.5 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 15.3 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 31.8 | 36.5 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 11.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 16.6 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 93.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.5 |
| | Direct Watershed | 6.2 | Mississippi River | 0.9 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.6 | 53.6 | 19.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 14.2 | Mississippi River | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 93.8 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 |
| | Direct Watershed | 7.2 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.0 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.0 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1071 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Direct Watershed | 23.3 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 43.1 | 13.6 | 0.0 | 26.6 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 4.1 |
| | Direct Watershed | 21.5 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.3 | 19.3 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 4.1 | 26.3 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 28.5 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 6.9 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.3 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 66.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.1 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.6 | Mississippi River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 78.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.6 |
| | Direct Watershed | 19.0 | Mississippi River | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 69.2 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.8 | 0.0 | 14.7 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.1 | Mississippi River | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 83.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.8 |
| | Direct Watershed | 80.6 | Mississippi River | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 76.3 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.9 |
| | Direct Watershed | 1.1 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 0.2 | Mississippi River | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 36.7 | Mississippi River | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 97.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 7.0 | Mississippi River | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.8 | 0.0 | 23.1 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 27.8 | Mother Lake | 0.5 | 0.4 | 22.5 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 65.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.9 | 0.0 |
| 74-020 | Pipeshed | 2.8 | Mother Lake | 0.5 | 0.2 | 52.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 44.6 | Powderhorn Lake | 0.1 | 0.1 | 4.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 94.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 |
| 82-010 | Pipeshed | 24.5 | Powderhorn Lake | 0.6 | 0.4 | 33.0 | 14.2 | 9.7 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 26.3 | 0.0 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 82-015 | Pipeshed | 3.1 | Powderhorn Lake | 0.2 | 0.1 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.8 | 0.0 | 80.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 82-020 | Pipeshed | 69.9 | Powderhorn Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 51.7 | 7.8 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 30.1 | 0.0 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 82-030 | Pipeshed | 81.2 | Powderhorn Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 53.8 | 6.6 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 33.9 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 82-040 | Pipeshed | 99.4 | Powderhorn Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 53.3 | 3.9 | 7.7 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 32.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 65-010DOT | Pipeshed | 5.3 | Richfield Lake | 0.8 | 0.7 | 4.8 | 30.4 | 0.3 | 14.0 | 0.8 | 49.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 65-020(A)DOT | Pipeshed | 52.2 | Richfield Lake | 0.6 | 0.5 | 29.5 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 29.0 | 0.0 | 39.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 4.9 | Ryan Lake | 0.1 | 0.1 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 81.6 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.7 |
| 21-010 | Pipeshed | 55.7 | Ryan Lake | 0.5 | 0.3 | 54.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 30.1 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| | Direct Watershed | 79.5 | Shingle Creek | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 8.7 | 0.5 | 2.1 | 5.8 | 0.0 | 77.4 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-010 | Pipeshed | 1.8 | Shingle Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 50.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.7 | 0.0 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-011 (A) | Pipeshed | 93.0 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 61.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.5 | 0.2 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.1 |
| 20-012 | Pipeshed | 1.5 | Shingle Creek | 0.6 | 0.3 | 40.3 | 10.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 47.5 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-013 | Pipeshed | 0.7 | Shingle Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 30.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.9 | 0.0 | 55.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-020 | Pipeshed | 5.5 | Shingle Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 38.9 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.8 | 0.0 | 37.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-030 | Pipeshed | 8.6 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 62.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.8 | 0.0 | 14.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1072 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 20-040 | Pipeshed | 16.4 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 68.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.1 | 0.0 | 11.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-050 | Pipeshed | 1.4 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 65.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.4 | 0.0 | 15.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-060 | Pipeshed | 3.6 | Shingle Creek | 0.7 | 0.5 | 33.2 | 0.0 | 27.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.4 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-065 | Pipeshed | 1.4 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 48.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.5 | 0.0 | 18.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-067PRV | Pipeshed | 3.6 | Shingle Creek | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-070 | Pipeshed | 34.5 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 62.5 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.2 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-080 | Pipeshed | 34.4 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 69.9 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.1 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-090 | Pipeshed | 4.1 | Shingle Creek | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 68.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.1 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-095 | Pipeshed | 0.4 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 65.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-100 (B) | Pipeshed | 34.9 | Shingle Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 54.1 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.8 | 0.0 | 19.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-110 | Pipeshed | 104.0 | Shingle Creek | 0.6 | 0.5 | 30.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 48.0 | 14.9 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-125 | Pipeshed | 13.0 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 68.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.7 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-133 | Pipeshed | 1.1 | Shingle Creek | 0.6 | 0.4 | 38.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26.6 | 0.0 | 35.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-134PRV | Pipeshed | 8.1 | Shingle Creek | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 98.8 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-135PRV | Pipeshed | 59.6 | Shingle Creek | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 83.6 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-140 | Pipeshed | 2.5 | Shingle Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 61.8 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.7 | 0.0 | 18.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-150 | Pipeshed | 12.7 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 65.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.6 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-170 | Pipeshed | 3.4 | Shingle Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 47.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-180 | Pipeshed | 45.7 | Shingle Creek | 0.9 | 0.9 | 3.3 | 6.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 11.2 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 71.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-190 | Pipeshed | 1.0 | Shingle Creek | 0.5 | 0.4 | 27.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 59.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-200 | Pipeshed | 18.9 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.3 | 59.5 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.4 | 0.0 | 13.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-210 (A) | Pipeshed | 227.6 | Shingle Creek | 0.3 | 0.2 | 45.8 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 20.3 | 0.0 | 30.1 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-210 (B) | Pipeshed | 0.1 | Shingle Creek | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-215 | Pipeshed | 475.3 | Shingle Creek | 0.4 | 0.2 | 44.9 | 1.7 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 20.3 | 0.0 | 29.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-220 | Pipeshed | 29.1 | Shingle Creek | 0.6 | 0.5 | 38.2 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 4.1 | 21.6 | 27.9 | 0.0 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-230 | Pipeshed | 24.0 | Shingle Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 33.0 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.3 | 0.0 | 46.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-240 | Pipeshed | 33.8 | Shingle Creek | 0.5 | 0.4 | 49.2 | 5.5 | 9.6 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 28.5 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-250 | Pipeshed | 7.2 | Shingle Creek | 0.8 | 0.8 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 34.3 | 0.0 | 57.0 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-260 | Pipeshed | 6.0 | Shingle Creek | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.3 | 71.7 | 18.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-270DOT | Pipeshed | 41.7 | Shingle Creek | 0.5 | 0.3 | 59.9 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 34.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1073 -->
| Outfall Number | Watershed Type | Area Acres | Receiving Water | Percent Imperviousness | Percent Direct Imperviousness | Single Family and Duplex (Percent) | Multi Family (Percent) | Institutional (Percent) | Commercial (Percent) | Industrial (Percent) | ROW (Percent) | Golf Course (Percent) | Park, Recreation and Preserve (Percent) | Railway (Percent) | Airport (Percent) | Open Water (Percent) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 20-280DOT | Pipeshed | 8.8 | Shingle Creek | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 2.8 | 94.2 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 20-290DOT | Pipeshed | 8.6 | Shingle Creek | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.2 | 31.2 | 48.6 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 62-010SAV | Pipeshed | 25.0 | Silver Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 66.1 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 28.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|  | Direct Watershed | 10.8 | Spring Lake | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 98.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 |
| 43-010 | Pipeshed | 11.6 | Spring Lake | 0.6 | 0.5 | 17.5 | 0.0 | 27.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.2 | 0.0 | 43.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 43-020 | Pipeshed | 16.8 | Spring Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 65.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.5 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 43-030 | Pipeshed | 10.8 | Spring Lake | 0.3 | 0.2 | 66.5 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.3 | 0.0 | 6.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|  | Direct Watershed | 0.2 | Taft Lake | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 96.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 |
| 73-010 | Pipeshed | 53.2 | Taft Lake | 0.4 | 0.2 | 68.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 73-020 | Pipeshed | 85.6 | Taft Lake | 0.5 | 0.4 | 50.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 48.8 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|  | Direct Watershed | 4.0 | Wirth Lake | 0.1 | 0.1 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 97.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 42-010 | Pipeshed | 0.0 | Wirth Lake | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| 42-030 | Pipeshed | 36.6 | Wirth Lake | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 99.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

<!-- page 1074 -->
# Appendix K – Water Resource Management Implementation Program (2019 to 2028)

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1075 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 1076 -->
### Implementation Activities

| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Part I – Administration and City-Wide Programs and Projects** | | | | | |
| Create/Modify City Ordinances | Review and revise ordinances as needed to meet the requirements of the City's SWMP and the BCWMC, MCWD, MWMO, and SCWMC. | The City's ordinances will be reviewed to ensure consistency with the goals and policies of this WRMP and for consistency with WMO, state, and federal rules and policies. | City Staff | 2018-2019 | SW Utility |
| Capital Improvement Program Updates | The City's Capital Improvement Program needs to be revised periodically. | The capital improvements program will be reviewed annually to include projects or programs that are necessary or recommended. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| WRMP Amendments | This WRMP may need to be amended periodically. | This WRMP will be amended as required. | As Required | As Required | SW Utility |
| WRMP Update/Revision | This WRMP will expire in 2028 and needs to be updated/revised to be consistent with WMO plans and policies and state and federal rules. | This WRMP will be updated to maintain compliance with state and federal rules and WMO policies. | 300,000 | 2026-2028 | SW Utility |
| Stormwater Public Education Activities | Implement the City's education program including educational and outreach tasks called out in the City's SWMP. | Maintain the education program to educate residents about water resource issues. | 90,000 per year | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Public Participation and Involvement | Continue to implement public participation and public involvement activities called out in the City's SWMP. | Tap into numerous public participation and public involvement activities to solicit input on specific stormwater-related activities and decisions. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Illicit Discharges Investigation Program | Minimize the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable by detecting, investigating, and resolving illicit discharges. | Addressing all illegal dumping and disposal of unpermitted, non-stormwater flows in the City's stormwater drainage system including pipes, gutters, swales, and other conveyance infrastructure. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Spill Response Program | Minimize the discharge of pollutants to lakes, creeks, wetlands, and the Mississippi River by appropriately responding to spills. | The immediate goals of response are safety, containment of the spill, recovery of hazardous materials, and collection of data for use in assessment of site impacts. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Facilities Inspection Program | Minimize the discharge of pollutants by conducting site visits of facilities that store large quantities of regulated and hazardous materials. | Site inspections yield information about the drainage patterns to nearest storm drain inlet or waterbody, identification of the receiving waterbody and outfall locations, and handling, storage, and transfer procedures. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1077 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Source Control Education and Outreach Program | Develop education to create behavior change in ways that will improve water quality. | Reduce pollutants at the source by focusing education efforts towards target pollutants and identified audiences. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Coordinated Staff Training Program | Delivery City-wide staff training on the stormwater management program. | Develop and conduct training related to the SWMP into all relevant parts of the business of City government in a coordinated, cost-effective way to fulfill federal and state requirements. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control for City Capital Projects | Minimize the discharge of pollutants from construction sites by requiring erosion prevention and sediment control measures. | Project design, plan review, inspection, enforcement, and staff education. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control for Development/Redevelopment | Minimize the discharge of pollutants from construction sites by requiring erosion prevention and sediment control measures. | Plan review, inspection, enforcement, and education. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Post Construction Stormwater Management | Maintain the post construction stormwater management and SWMP tasks for development/redevelopment. | Ordinance update, design standards, plan review, and education. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Post Construction Stormwater Management – Ongoing Compliance | Ensure ongoing compliance for private BMPs. | Inspections to ensure facilities are continuing to function as designed and approved and carrying out maintenance or rehabilitation activities as needed. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Review and Approval for Projects Proposing to Modify MS4 System | Adding, modifying, or removing infrastructure that is part of the MS4 system. | Review and approve projects that will physically alter the MS4 system for the betterment of the system and to avoid adverse capacity, maintenance, and pollutant discharge impacts. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Pilot Projects | Identify opportunities to improve management of pollutant loads. | Engage emerging technologies and develop and maintain a toolbox of options to improve water resource management. | 100,000 | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| City Good Housekeeping | Maintain the City pollution prevention/good housekeeping practices and related SWMP tasks including sanitary and storm sewer maintenance. | Structure clean-out, city facility operations and maintenance, training, inspections, recording, and reporting. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Street Sweeping and Cleaning Program | Minimize the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system and receiving waterbodies. | Remove leaf litter, sediment, and debris from streets and gutters before the materials, and pollutants attached to them, can be washed into storm drain inlets. | 9,970,000 per year | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Snow and Ice Control | Use salt and deicing chemicals responsibly to protect public safety and the needs of the environment. | Manage, monitor, and report on the application of chemicals for snow and ice control on streets and alleys and in storage facilities. | City Staff | Ongoing | General Fund |

<!-- page 1078 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Stormwater Monitoring Program | Water quality monitoring and analysis to understand and improve stormwater management program effectiveness. | Monitoring of water quality BMPs to determine effectiveness and representative land use pipesheds. | 224,500 per year | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Annual SWPPP Update and Meeting | Make any needed updates to the City’s SWMP and hold an annual public meeting to receive public input. | Involve residents in water resource issues development and implementation tasks. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Impaired Waters Tracking and Review | Monitor impaired waters list and respond with review and implementation as needed per the SWMP. | The City will remain fully informed and responsive to impaired waters issues. | City Staff | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Fleet Vehicles | Replace sanitary and stormwater program vehicles. | Maintain transportation. | - | - | SW Utility |
| Retrofit Plan | NPDES MS4 Program requirement. | Plan to evaluate the City’s ability to implement structural stormwater BMPs in areas where there is no stormwater runoff treatment or where existing stormwater treatment could be enhanced. | City Staff | 2019 | SW Utility |
| Flood Mitigation Program H&H Model Development Feasibility Analysis and Project Prioritization | Model and inventory of flood areas throughout the City and analyze for solutions. | Develop flood model for the entire City and prioritize proposed improvements. | 7,777,777+ | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| Ongoing Water Quality Modeling | Ongoing modeling of water quality will be needed to quantify pollutant load reduction due to BMP implementation. | Update model. | City Staff | 2017 to 2019 | SW Utility |
| Sedimentation Pond Maintenance | Sedimentation ponds require frequent cleaning and maintenance. | Continue to implement program to inspect, clean, and maintain sedimentation and water quality ponds. | 100,000 per year | Ongoing | SW Utility |
| **Part II – Capital Improvements** | | | | | |
| **Infiltration and Inflow Mitigation Program** | | | | | |
| **Reduce the amount of infiltration and inflow to the sanitary sewer system including CIPP lining program and miscellaneous repairs** | | | **3,500,000 per year** | **Ongoing** | **Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility** |
| **Sanitary Tunnel and Sewer Rehabilitation Program** | | | | | |
| **Repair and rehabilitation of tunnels, pipes, lift stations, and access structures.** | | | **8,000,000 to 16,000,000 per year** | **Ongoing** | **Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility** |
| 00001.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Vincent Avenue N | 715,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00001.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Vincent Avenue N | 10,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1079 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 00002.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hoyer Heights | 1,748,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00002.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hoyer Heights | 1,000,000 | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00002.4 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hoyer Heights | 100,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00002.5 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hoyer Heights | 396,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00003.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 3415 Central Avenue | 267,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00004.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 2800 Pacific | 100,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00005.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Mid-City Industrial | 1,208,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00005.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Mid-City Industrial | 3,000,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00005.4 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Mid-City Industrial | 200,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00006.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Broadway Avenue NE | 5,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00007.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Fremont Avenue N (8ᵗʰ to 7ᵗʰ) | 308,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00008.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Chestnut Avenue W (Vincent to Upton) | 181,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00008.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Chestnut Avenue W (Vincent to Upton) | 30,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00009.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hennepin Avenue (33ʳᵈ to 35ᵗʰ) | 65,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00010.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 4338 Portland | 232,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00011.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 12ᵗʰ Avenue South (41ˢᵗ to 42ⁿᵈ) | 205,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00011.4 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 40ᵗʰ Avenue S (28ᵗʰ to 29ᵗʰ) | 178,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00011.6 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 18ᵗʰ Avenue (43ʳᵈ to 44ᵗʰ) | 206,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00012.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 4740 Xerxes Avenue S | 335,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |

<!-- page 1080 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 00012.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 4740 Xerxes Avenue S | 3,500 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00013.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Xerxes Avenue S (53^rd to 54^th) | 426,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00014.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Girard Avenue S (53^rd to Minnehaha) | 350,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00014.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Girard Avenue S (53^rd to Minnehaha) | 10,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00015.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Cedar Avenue S (51^st to 52^nd) | 40,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00015.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Cedar Avenue S (51^st to 52^nd) | 45,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00016.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Minnehaha (53^rd to 54^th) | 192,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00016.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Minnehaha (53^rd to 54^th) | 17,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00017.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Lyndale Avenue S and 58^th Street | 88,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00017.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Lyndale Avenue S and 58^th Street | 37,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00018.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Solomon Park | 330,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00018.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Solomon Park | 5,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00019.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 34^th Avenue S (56^th to 58^th) | 120,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00019.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 34^th Avenue S (56^th to 58^th) | 800,000 | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00021.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Irving Sewer | TBD | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00021.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Irving Sewer | TBD | 2020 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00022.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 2^nd Avenue N | TBD | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00022.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 2^nd Avenue N | 1,000,000 | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00023.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hennepin Avenue S Downtown | 500,000 | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1081 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 00023.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hennepin Avenue S Downtown | 4,250,000 | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00023.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hennepin Avenue S Downtown | 4,250,000 | 2020 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00024.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | BLRT Sanitary | TBD | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00024.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | BLRT Sanitary | TBD | 2020 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00026.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Glenwood Avenue Sanitary | 90,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00026.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Glenwood Avenue Sanitary County | TBD | 2020 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00027.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 2^nd Street N and Plymouth Avenue N Sanitary | 265,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00027.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 2^nd Street N Sanitary | 6,000,000 | 2020 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00027.3 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Plymouth Avenue N Sanitary | 100,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00027.4 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Plymouth Avenue N Sanitary | 500,000 | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00028.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hennepin Avenue S at 33^rd – Construction | 70,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00028.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Hennepin Avenue S at 33^rd – Inspection | 10,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00029.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | East River Road Sanitary | TBD | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00029.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | East River Road Sanitary | TBD | 2020 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00030.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Lake Harriet Parkway | TBD | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00030.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Lake Harriet Parkway | TBD | 2020 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00031.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 42^nd | TBD | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00031.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 42^nd | TBD | 2020 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |
| 00032.2 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Wenonah West Design 2 | 60,000 | 2019 | Sanitary Bonds<br>Sanitary Utility |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1082 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 00036.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | Misc. Paving Project Sanitary Repairs | 100,000 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| 00037.1 | Sanitary Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation – Design and Construction | 42ⁿᵈ and 19ᵗʰ | 7,500 | 2018 | Sanitary Bonds Sanitary Utility |
| **Implementation of Environmental Protection Agency Stormwater Regulations** | | | | | |
| **Structural and Water Quality Improvement Projects Necessary for Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance** | | | **250,000 per year** | **Ongoing** | **SW Utility** |
| Restoration and Stabilization of Historic Bassett Creek Channel | Stream Restoration within Bassett Creek Watershed | Provide erosion control and restoration within the Bassett Creek stream channel. | 500,000 | 2022 | SW Utility BCWMC |
| Bryn Mawr Meadows | Water Quality Improvement Project within Bassett Creek Watershed | Install water quality and volume reduction BMPs. | 500,000 | 2020 to 2021 | SW Utility BCWMC |
| Bassett Creek Park Water Quality Improvement Project | Water Quality Improvement Project within Bassett Creek Watershed | Install water quality and volume reduction BMPs. | 500,000 | 2024 | SW Utility BCWMC |
| Dredging of Accumulated Sediment in Main Stem Bassett Creek just North of Highway 55, Wirth Park | Water Quality Improvement Project within Bassett Creek Watershed | Install water quality and volume reduction BMPs. | 400,000 | 2021 | SW Utility BCWMC |
| Minnehaha Parkway Stormwater Management | Water Quality Improvement Project within Minnehaha Creek Watershed | Install water quality and volume reduction BMPs. | 1,400,000 | 2020 to 2021 | SW Utility MCWD |
| Stormwater Volume and Pollutant Load Reduction | Water Quality Improvement Project within Minnehaha Creek Watershed | Install water quality and volume reduction BMPs. | 500,000 | 2018 to 2027 | SW Utility MCWD Grants |
| Restoration of Eroded Riverbank Sites | River Restoration within Mississippi River Corridor | Reduce bank erosion, improve water quality and habitat along the Mississippi River. | 1,000,000 | 2018 to 2021 | MWMO |
| Greening within the Public Right-of-Way/8ᵗʰ Street Green Infrastructure Pilot | Water Quality Improvement Project within Mississippi River Watershed | 8ᵗʰ Street road reconstruction. Addition of urban greening and green stormwater infrastructure. | 1,000,000 | 2018 to 2019 | SW Utility MWMO |
| Northeast Green Campus Water Quality Improvements | Water Quality Improvement Project within Mississippi River Watershed | Parking lot improvements and innovative stormwater management. | 200,000 | 2018 to 2020 | MWMO |
| Prospect North Partnership Water Quality Improvements | Water Quality Improvement Project within Mississippi River Watershed | Bridal Veil Creek subwatershed. | 3,500,000 | 2018 to 2019 | MWMO |
| Scherer Park | Water Quality, Water Conservation, and Habitat Improvements within Mississippi River Watershed | Shoreline restoration and the development of wetlands, biohavens, and a riverine island. | 1,500,000 | 2018 to 2019 | MWMO |
| Old Bassett Creek Tunnel | Water Quality and Water Conservation Improvements | Structural repairs and modifications to the Old Bassett Creek Tunnel, including the addition of access shafts to facilitate future removal of sediment. | 2,000,000 | 2018 to 2020 | SW Utility MWMO |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1083 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Water Works Park | Water Quality and Green Infrastructure Project | West bank of the Mississippi River just north of the Stone Arch Bridge. Installation of green infrastructure practices and a stormwater reuse system. | 900,000 | 2018 to 2019 | MWMO MPRB |
| Upper Harbor Terminal | Site and District-Scale Water Quality Improvements | Provide water quality treatment, improve ecosystem services, provide band and shoreline habitat restoration. | 600,000 | 2019 to 2020 | MWMO |
| Shingle Creek Restoration | Stream Restoration within Shingle Creek Watershed | Provide stream corridor improvements on Shingle Creek within Webber Park. | 500,000 | 2019 | SW Utility SCWMC |
| Shingle Creek Restoration | Stream Restoration within Shingle Creek Watershed | Provide stream corridor improvements on Shingle Creek along Lower Reach 7; USGS station at Queen Avenue to Webber Park. | 500,000 | TBD | SW Utility SCWMC |
| 10-100 | Water Quality Improvement | 1825 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 11,310,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-450 | Water Quality Improvement | 1021 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 15,640,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-460 | Water Quality Improvement | 889 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 10,960,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 54-100 | Water Quality Improvement | 1461 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska. | 5,500,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-295 | Water Quality Improvement | 851 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 13,390,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-720 | Water Quality Improvement | 1239 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 10,590,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-560 | Water Quality Improvement | 1021 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 4,220,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-410 | Water Quality Improvement | 350 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 14,140,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 52-100 | Water Quality Improvement | 1667 acre pipeshed draining to Cedar Lake. | 450,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1084 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 76-010 | Water Quality Improvement | 920 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Hiawatha. | 8,840,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-500 | Water Quality Improvement | 637 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 9,940,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-680 | Water Quality Improvement | 667 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 9,000,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 40-010 | Water Quality Improvement | 716 acre pipeshed draining to Bassett Creek. | 6,570,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 73-020 | Water Quality Improvement | 1152 acre pipeshed draining to Taft Lake. | 1,700,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-320 | Water Quality Improvement | 394 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 4,410,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-130 | Water Quality Improvement | 332 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 3,480,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| Mississippi River Direct | Water Quality Improvement | 577 are pipeshed draining directly to Mississippi River. | 880,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-420 | Water Quality Improvement | 193 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 5,310,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 54-080 | Water Quality Improvement | 954 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska. | 2,950,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 51-030 | Water Quality Improvement | 376 acre pipeshed draining to Brownie Lake. | 970,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 57-100 (A) | Water Quality Improvement | 363 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Harriet. | 3,540,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-530 | Water Quality Improvement | 268 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,800,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1085 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 10-250 | Water Quality Improvement | 245 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 3,200,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-180 | Water Quality Improvement | 276 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,900,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 20-215 | Water Quality Improvement | 480 acre pipeshed draining to Shingle Creek. | 2,670,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 54-040 | Water Quality Improvement | 233 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska. | 3,720,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 71-070 (A) | Water Quality Improvement | 273 acre pipeshed draining to Diamond Lake. | 3,280,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-110 (A) | Water Quality Improvement | 292 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 3,430,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 70-055 | Water Quality Improvement | 380 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,400,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-640 | Water Quality Improvement | 272 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,930,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-570 | Water Quality Improvement | 219 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,710,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-230 | Water Quality Improvement | 231 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,930,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-490 | Water Quality Improvement | 139 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,500,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-240 | Water Quality Improvement | 115 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 3,170,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 53-160 | Water Quality Improvement | 193 acre pipeshed draining to Lake of the Isles. | 2,460,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1086 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 70-330 | Water Quality Improvement | 263 acre pipeshed draining to Minnehaha Creek. | 2,520,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-660 | Water Quality Improvement | 298 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,310,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-170 | Water Quality Improvement | 168 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,200,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-120 (b) | Water Quality Improvement | 257 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,350,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 54-140 (A) | Water Quality Improvement | 159 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska. | 1,070,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 40-140 | Water Quality Improvement | 250 acre pipeshed draining to Bassett Creek. | 1,880,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-565 | Water Quality Improvement | 153 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 2,830,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-150 | Water Quality Improvement | 148 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 1,960,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 20-210 (A) | Water Quality Improvement | 285 acre pipeshed draining to Shingle Creek. | 1,280,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 10-700 | Water Quality Improvement | 214 acre pipeshed draining to Mississippi River. | 1,930,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 63-010 | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 515 acre pipeshed draining to Crystal Lake. | 5,530,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 72-020 | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 21 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Nokomis. | 270,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 72-040 (A) | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 149 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Nokomis. | 1,980,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1087 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| 72-055 (B) PB | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 114 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Nokomis. | 970,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 72-090 | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 136 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Nokomis. | 920,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 72-115 (A) PB | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 149 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Nokomis. | 1,360,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 72-125 PB | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 79 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Nokomis. | 890,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 73-010 | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 54 acre pipeshed draining to Taft Lake. | 610,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 76-005 (A) | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 196 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Hiawatha. | 610,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 76-020 | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 88 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Hiawatha. | 1,220,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 76-030 | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 8 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Hiawatha. | 110,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 76-040 | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 3 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Hiawatha. | 70,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| 76-050 | Water Quality Improvement based on Total Maximum Daily Load | 1 acre pipeshed draining to Lake Hiawatha. | 40,000 | TBD | SW Utility WMO Partners Grants |
| **Combined Sewer Overflow Improvements** | | | | | |
| **Work towards separations of the sanitary and storm sewer systems where feasible and cost-effective.** | | | **1,500,000 per year** | **Ongoing** | **SW Utility** |
| 180 | Sewer Separation Project | 29^th Avenue S and Franklin Avenue E | 136,000 | 2018 | SW Utility |
| 176 | Sewer Separation Project | 10^th Avenue N and 5^th Street N | 145,000 | 2018 | SW Utility |
| 177 | Sewer Separation Project | 10^th Avenue N and 8^th Avenue N | 210,000 | 2018 | SW Utility |
| 001 | Sewer Separation Project | 22^nd Avenue N and 2^nd Street N | 692,500 | 2019 | SW Utility |
| 117 | Sewer Separation Project | 2^nd Street N and 23^rd Avenue N | 825,000 | 2019 | SW Utility |

<!-- page 1088 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 188 | Sewer Separation Project | 8th Street S and Park Avenue | 180,000 | 2019 | SW Utility |
| 189 | Sewer Separation Project | 8th Street S and Park Avenue | 202,500 | 2019 | SW Utility |
| 095 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley north of 33rd Avenue N and east of Tyler Street NE | 375,000 | 2020 | SW Utility |
| 108 | Sewer Separation Project | Polk Street NE and 36th Avenue NE | 960,000 | 2020 | SW Utility |
| 154 | Sewer Separation Project | Coolidge Street NE and 19th Avenue NE | 377,500 | 2020 | SW Utility |
| 195 | Sewer Separation Project | Coolidge Street NE and 22nd Avenue NE | 277,500 | 2020 | SW Utility |
| 138 | Sewer Separation Project | Xerxes Avenue N and Lowry Avenue N | 117,500 | 2021 | SW Utility |
| 139 | Sewer Separation Project | Washburn Avenue N and Osseo Road | 190,000 | 2021 | SW Utility |
| 158 | Sewer Separation Project | 24th Avenue S and 54½ Street E | 52,500 | 2021 | SW Utility |
| 153 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley south of 29th Street W and east of Colfax Avenue S | 500,000 | 2021 | SW Utility |
| 164 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley south of Spring Street NE and east of Madison Street NE | 337,500 | 2021 | SW Utility |
| 149 | Sewer Separation Project | Bryant Avenue S and 40th Street W | 312,500 | 2021 | SW Utility |
| 165 | Sewer Separation Project | South of I-94 and 1st Avenue S | 307,500 | 2021 | SW Utility |
| 181 | Sewer Separation Project | 50th Street W and Aldrich Avenue S | 127,500 | 2022 | SW Utility |
| 187 | Sewer Separation Project | 14th Avenue NE and Van Buren Street NE | 672,500 | 2022 | SW Utility |
| 193 | Sewer Separation Project | Main Street NE and 4th Avenue NE | 352,500 | 2022 | SW Utility |
| 194 | Sewer Separation Project | Marshall Street NE and 16th Avenue NE | 430,000 | 2022 | SW Utility |
| 151 | Sewer Separation Project | 38th Street W and Dupont Avenue S | 75,000 | 2023 | SW Utility |
| 191 | Sewer Separation Project | 51st Street E and 40th Avenue S | 100,000 | 2023 | SW Utility |
| 163 | Sewer Separation Project | Hennepin Avenue and Franklin Avenue W | 57,500 | 2023 | SW Utility |
| 042 | Sewer Separation Project | Stevens Avenue and Lake Street E | 922,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 055 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley west of Cedar Avenue and south of 47th Street E | 612,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 069 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley west of Pillsbury and north of 43rd Street W | 572,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 086 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley east of Grand Avenue and north of 42nd Street W | 622,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 088 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley west of Harriet Avenue and south of 46th Street W | 535,000 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 089 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley west of Garfield Avenue and north of 46th Street W | 557,500 | TBD | SW Utility |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1089 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 109 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley east of Pillsbury Avenue and south of 43rd Street W | 542,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 121 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley north of W 38th Street and east of Blaisdell Avenue S | 857,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 133 | Sewer Separation Project | Stevens Avenue S and 35th Street E | 190,000 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 150 | Sewer Separation Project | Stevens Avenue and 32nd Street E | 232,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 172 | Sewer Separation Project | 33rd Avenue N and Irving Avenue N | 580,000 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 183 | Sewer Separation Project | Alley south of 47th Street W and west of Wentworth Avenue S | 665,000 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 184 | Sewer Separation Project | 4th Avenue S and 36th Street E | 367,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 186 | Sewer Separation Project | 17th Street E and 11th Avenue S | 282,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| 192 | Sewer Separation Project | Monroe Street NE and 19th Avenue NE | 417,500 | TBD | SW Utility |
| **Storm Drains and Tunnels Rehabilitation Program** | | | | | |
| **Repair and rehabilitate the condition and/or capacity of the storm drain and tunnel systems.** | | | **6,000,000 per year** | **Ongoing** | **SW Bonds SW Utility** |
| 00001.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Hoyer Heights | 250,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00001.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Hoyer Heights | 250,000 | 2019 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00002.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | 61st Street W | 300,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00003.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Mid-City Industrial (inc FA58) | 186,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00004.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | 34th Avenue S | 45,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00005.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Cedar/Longfellow Alley Drain | 150,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00005.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Cedar/Longfellow Alley Drain | 150,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00006.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Lyndale Outfall | 160,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00006.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Lyndale Outfall | 565,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| 00008.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Central City Tunnel Rehabilitation | 650,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1090 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 00008.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Central City Tunnel Rehabilitation | 650,000 | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00009.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Phillips Tunnel Shaft | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00009.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Phillips Tunnel Shaft | 80,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00010.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | 10ᵗʰ Avenue Tunnel Phase 5 | 165,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00010.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | 10ᵗʰ Avenue Tunnel Phase 5 | 2,900,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00011.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Glenwood Avenue Storm | 200,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00012.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | 11ᵗʰ Avenue Outfall | 50,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00013.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | SCADA Construction | 385,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00014.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Como Tunnel Drill Hole Design | 65,400 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00017.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Pump Station Construction Phase I | 120,000 | TBD | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00017.3 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Pump Station Construction Phase II | 1,100,000 | TBD | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00018.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Pump Station Inspection | 180,000 | TBD | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00020.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | SCADA Construction Inspection | 175,000 | TBD | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00021.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – 34ᵗʰ/35ᵗʰ and Oliver/Newton | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00021.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – 34ᵗʰ/35ᵗʰ and Oliver/Newton | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00022.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – 14ᵗʰ Avenue N – Upton Avenue N and Thomas Avenue N | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00022.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – 14ᵗʰ Avenue N – Upton Avenue N and Thomas Avenue N | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |

<!-- page 1091 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| 00023.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between Washburn Avenue N and Vincent Avenue N, north of Lowry Avenue | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00023.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between Washburn Avenue N and Vincent Avenue N, north of Lowry Avenue | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00024.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – 43ʳᵈ Street E, west of the intersection with 39ᵗʰ Avenue S | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00024.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – 43ʳᵈ Street E, west of the intersection with 39ᵗʰ Avenue S | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00025.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between 40ᵗʰ Avenue S and 41ˢᵗ Avenue S, south of 40ᵗʰ Street E | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00025.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between 40ᵗʰ Avenue S and 41ˢᵗ Avenue S, south of 40ᵗʰ Street E | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00026.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between 40ᵗʰ Avenue S and 41ˢᵗ Avenue S, south of 43ʳᵈ Street E | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00026.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between 40ᵗʰ Avenue S and 41ˢᵗ Avenue S, south of 43ʳᵈ Street E | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00027.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between Snelling Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue, south of 44ᵗʰ Street E | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00027.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between Snelling Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue, south of 44ᵗʰ Street E | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00028.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between 41ˢᵗ Avenue S and 42ⁿᵈ Avenue S, north of 33ʳᵈ Street E | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00028.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between 41ˢᵗ Avenue S and 42ⁿᵈ Avenue S, north of 33ʳᵈ Street E | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00029.1 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between Irving Avenue S and James Avenue S, south of 53ʳᵈ Street W | TBD | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| 00029.2 | Storm Sewer Repair and Rehabilitation Project | Storm Alley – Between Irving Avenue S and James Avenue S, south of 53ʳᵈ Street W | TBD | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| **I-35W Storm Tunnel Reconstruction** | | | | | |
| Reconstruct and/or expand the I-35W tunnel systems to provide additional capacity. | | | 9000,000,000 | 2023 to 2025 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>State Funding |
| **Flood Mitigation with Alternative Stormwater Management** | | | | | |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1092 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Address localized flooding and drainage problems while looking at volume, pollutant loads, and rate controls** | | | **5,000,000 per year** | **Ongoing** | **SW Bonds SW Utility WMO Partners Grants MPRB** |
| Southwest Harriet Flood Mitigation – includes FA 29-30 | Flood Mitigation Program | Provide flood mitigation and water quality treatment as possible. | 72,000,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Utility MCWD Grants |
| Hiawatha Golf Course Restoration | Flood Mitigation Program | Provide flood mitigation and water quality treatment as possible. | 1,940,000 | 2020 to 2021 | SW Utility MPRB MCWD Grants |
| 1 NE Watershed Phase I Improvements | Flood Mitigation Program | Provide flood mitigation and water quality treatment as possible. | 16,000,000 | 2019 to 2023 | SW Utility MWMO Grants SW Bonds |
| 13th and 2nd NE | Flood Mitigation Program | Provide flood mitigation and water quality treatment as possible. | TBD | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 58 – Mid-City Pond | Flood Mitigation Program | Provide flood mitigation and water quality treatment as possible. | 2,905,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds SW Utility |
| FA 05- 35th Avenue N to Dowling/Washburn to Morgan | Flood Mitigation Program | Provide a new storm drain from 35th Avenue N and Vincent to Crystal Lake in Robbinsdale. | 32,000,000 to 64,000,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants SCWMC |
| FA 06 – 30th Avenue N to 33rd/Dupont to Irving Avenue N | Flood Mitigation Program | Project substantially completed. One connection remains to be made at 33rd Avenue N. | TBD | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 08 – 3rd Street N and 23rd Avenue N | Flood Mitigation Program | Updated storm drain between 22nd Avenue N and 25th Avenue N | 1,361,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1093 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| FA 13 – Clinton Avenue S, 45ᵗʰ Street E to 46ᵗʰ Street E | Flood Mitigation Program | Upgrade existing storm drains along E 46ᵗʰ Street between Clinton Avenue S and 5ᵗʰ Avenue S and on 5ᵗʰ Avenue S between E 46ᵗʰ Street and E 46ᵗʰ Street | 6,275,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>MCWD<br>MPRB |
| FA 14 – E 40ᵗʰ Street, 4ᵗʰ Avenue S to 5ᵗʰ Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | Upgrade existing storm drains along E 40ᵗʰ Street between 5ᵗʰ Avenue S and Clinton Avenue S | 1,039,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>State Funds |
| FA 15 – 22ⁿᵈ Street W and Garfield Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | Construct new storm drain on both 22ⁿᵈ Street E and along Lyndale Avenue S | 7,280,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>MnDOT |
| FA 17 – 43ʳᵈ Street W and Wentworth Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | Construct relief drains along 43ʳᵈ Street W, which terminate at the I-35W tunnel. | 3,315,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>MnDOT |
| FA 18 – 50ᵗʰ and Wentworth Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | Construct relief drains along 47ᵗʰ Street W, Pleasant Avenue S, and Garfield Avenue S which terminates at the I-35W tunnel. | 8,791,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>MnDOT |
| FA 21 – Bloomington Holding Pond | Flood Mitigation Program | Construct new storm drain to new flood ponds in Hiawatha Golf Course and new pumps. | 4,924,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>MCWD<br>MPRB |
| FA 22 – Sibley Field | Flood Mitigation Program | Construct new storm drain on Longfellow Avenue S and a new inlet structure to Sibley Field. | 5,422,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>MCWD<br>MPRB |
| FA 25 – W 45ᵗʰ Street, Nicollet to 1ˢᵗ | Flood Mitigation Program | Install a relief storm drain along 44ᵗʰ Street W and 45ᵗʰ Street W to the I-35W storm tunnel. | 2,505,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>MnDOT |

<!-- page 1094 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| FA 29 and 30 -50^th to 51^st, Zenith to York Avenue S, 51^st Street W and Abbot Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | Upgrade existing storm drain to Lake Harriet. | 15,975,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 32 – E 49^th Street and Stevens Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | Construct new outlet to MnDOT system at E 49^th Street and Stevens Avenue S. | 1,154,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants MnDOT |
| FA 36 – Victory Memorial Parkway and Xerxes Avenue | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 39 – 46^th Avenue S, 36^th Street E to 37^th Street E | Flood Mitigation Program | Upgrade existing storm drains to the Mississippi River when area streets are reconstructed or renovated. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 40 – W 38^th Street and Kings Highway | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants MPRB |
| FA 41 – 27^th Avenue NE and Stinson Boulevard | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 42 – 10^th Avenue S and E 27^th Street (Abbott Hospital) | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants MPRB |
| FA 44 – 29^th Avenue NE and Tyler Street NE | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 2,585,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 45 – W 33^rd Street and Girard Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 2,585,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 47 – W 22^nd Street and Emerson Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1095 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| FA 48 – 2^nd Street NW and Lowry Avenue NE | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 4,707,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 49 – 32^nd Avenue NE and Garfield | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 2,585,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 50 – 3542 Polk Street NE and 3547 Tyler Street NE Alley | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 2,585,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 51 – 34^th Avenue NE and Central Avenue NE | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 2,585,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 52 – 35^th Avenue NE and 5^th Street NE | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 2,585,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 53 – 27^th Avenue NE and Randolph Street NE | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 2,585,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 54 – Shoreham Yards (Lake Sandy) | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 2,585,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 55 – 16xx Lyn-Park Avenue N | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 56 – 56xx Xerxes Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |
| FA 57 – 44xx Chowen Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds SW Utility Grants |

<!-- page 1096 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| FA 58 – Summer Street NE and McKinley Place | Flood Mitigation Program | New storm sewer has been installed. Certify the status of this area and update its status in the project file. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants |
| FA 59 – Lyndale Avenue S, 26th Street E to 27th Street E | Flood Mitigation Program | CSO and alley flooding issue. Needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants |
| FA 60 – 2129 Emerson Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | Intersection is low point. Needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants |
| FA 61 – E 40th Street, Van Nest to I-35W | Flood Mitigation Program | Identified during I-35W Tunnel Study. | 2,020,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants<br>MnDOT |
| FA 62 – 6th Avenue SE at 7th Street SE | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants |
| FA 63 – 28th Avenue S and Humboldt Avenue S | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants |
| FA 64 – 2900 Upton, part of Logan Pond watershed | Flood Mitigation Program | See Figure 6.6 – Historically Identified Flood Project Areas for project location – needs detailed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. | 6,102,000 | Prioritized through Flood Mitigation Program | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Grants |
| **Central City Parallel Storm Tunnel** | | | | | |
| **Design and construction of a new tunnel in the Central City area to address increases in the rate and volume of stormwater in downtown tunnels.** | | | **33,000,000** | **2020 to 2022** | **SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>State Funds<br>Grants** |
| Central City Parallel Tunnel | Stormwater tunnel design and construction project. | Design | 641,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |
| Central City Parallel Tunnel | Stormwater tunnel design and construction project. | Design | 1,000,000 | 2018 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility |

<!-- page 1097 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Central City Parallel Tunnel | Stormwater tunnel design and construction project. | Construction | 9,500,000 | 2020 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>State Funds<br>Grants |
| Central City Parallel Tunnel | Stormwater tunnel design and construction project. | Construction | 9,500,000 | 2021 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>State Funds<br>Grants |
| Central City Parallel Tunnel | Stormwater tunnel design and construction project. | Construction | 9,500,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>State Funds<br>Grants |
| **Reimbursable Storm Drain Construction** | | | | | |
| **Stormwater Utility upgrades needed as part of street reconstruction projects. Cost estimate is for total reconstruction.** | | | **2,000,000 per year** | **Ongoing** | **SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA** |
| PV054 | Street Reconstruction | 8th Street S, Hennepin Avenue to Chicago Avenue. | 18,474,000 | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV095 | Street Reconstruction | 4th Street N and S, 2nd Avenue N to 4th Avenue S. | 14,220,000 | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV125 | Street Reconstruction | 33rd Street E and 35th Street E, Hiawatha to Minnehaha and Railroad Tracks to Dwight Avenue. | 2,840,000 | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |

<!-- page 1098 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| PV135 | Street Reconstruction | North Loop Paving. | 9,365,000 | 2019 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV118 | Street Reconstruction | Hennepin Avenue, Washington Avenue to 12th Street S. | 22,960,000 | 2020 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV139 | Street Reconstruction | 18th Avenue NE, Johnson to Stinson. | 4,965,000 | 2020 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV147 | Street Reconstruction | Girard Avenue S, Lake to Lagoon. | 1,295,000 | 2020 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV141 | Street Reconstruction | Grand Avenue S, Lake to 48th. | 14,575,000 | 2021 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV113 | Street Reconstruction | 29th Street W, Phase II. | 2,115,000 | 2021 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV142 | Street Reconstruction | Downtown East Paving. | 3,120,000 | 2021 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |

<!-- page 1099 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| PV137 | Street Reconstruction | 29th Avenue NE, Central to Stinson. | 8,575,000 | 2021 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV152 | Street Reconstruction | Plymouth Avenue, Washburn to Penn. | 5,440,000 | 2021 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV156 | Street Reconstruction | Johnson Street NE, 18th Avenue NE to Lowry Avenue NE. | 4,499,000 | 2021 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV122 | Street Reconstruction | Dowling Avenue N, I-94 to 1st Street N. | 3,340,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV123 | Street Reconstruction | Logan Park Commercial. | 6,650,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV143 | Street Reconstruction | North Industrial. | 5,640,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV154 | Street Reconstruction | Franklin Avenue, Hennepin to Lyndale. | 2,055,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |

<!-- page 1100 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| PV146 | Street Reconstruction | 9th Street SE, 6th Avenue SE to 9th Avenue SE. | 2,460,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV092 | Street Reconstruction | Technology Drive, 37th Avenue NE to Marshall Street NE. | 1,025,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV138 | Street Reconstruction | 26th Street E, 29th Avenue S to Minnehaha Avenue. | 4,510,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV140 | Street Reconstruction | 13th Avenue NE, Sibley Street NE to Washington Street NE. | 7,575,000 | 2022 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV150 | Street Reconstruction | 1st Avenue N, Washington Avenue to 10th Street N. | 12,135,000 | 2023 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV126 | Street Reconstruction | Bryant Avenue S, Lake Street W to 50th Street W. | 18,390,00 | 2023 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV127 | Street Reconstruction | 37th Avenue NE, Central to Stinson. | 10,240,000 | 2023 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |

<!-- page 1101 -->
| Project Name/Location | Description | Proposed Improvement | Cost Estimate ($) | Proposed Year | Funding Source |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| PV158 | Street Reconstruction | Hennepin Avenue, Lake Street to Douglas Avenue. | 18,585,000 | 2023 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV153 | Street Reconstruction | Sunrise/60^th/58^th, Xerxes to Aldrich. | 11,025,000 | 2024 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV132 | Street Reconstruction | 1^st/Marquette, 12^th Street S to Lake Street E. | 14,555,000 | 2024 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV149 | Street Reconstruction | 4^th Avenue S, 3^rd Street S to 10^th Street S. | 9,905,000 | 2024 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV151 | Street Reconstruction | 4^th Street NE, Broadway to Lowry. | 6,010,000 | 2024 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| PV157 | Street Reconstruction | 33^rd Avenue NE, Central Avenue to Stinson Boulevard NE. | 11,250,000 | 2024 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |
| BR117 | Street Reconstruction | 1^st Street N, Bridge over Bassett Creek. | 1,380,000 | 2020 | SW Bonds<br>SW Utility<br>Assessment Bonds<br>Net Debt Bonds<br>MSA |

<!-- page 1102 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 1103 -->
### Timelines and Annual Costs

| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| **Part I – Administration and City-Wide Programs and Projects** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Create/Modify City Ordinances | City Staff | City Staff | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Capital Improvement Program Updates | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| WRMP Amendments | As Required | As Required | As Required | As Required | As Required | As Required | As Required | As Required | As Required | As Required | As Required | - |
| WRMP Update/Revision | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 150,000 | 150,000 | - |
| Stormwater Public Education Activities | 150,000 | 150,000 | 150,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 | - |
| Public Participation and Involvement | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Illicit Discharges Investigation Program | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Spill Response Program | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Facilities Inspection Program | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Source Control Education and Outreach Program | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Coordinated Staff Training | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control for City Capital Redevelopment | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control for Development/Redevelopment | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Post Construction Stormwater Management | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Post Construction Stormwater Management – Ongoing Compliance | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Review and Approval for Projects Proposing to Modify MS4 System | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Pilot Projects | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | - |
| City Good Housekeeping | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Street Sweeping and Cleaning Program | 9,866,000 | 9,972,000 | 10,271,000 | 10,580,000 | 10,900,000 | 11,230,000 | 11,571,000 | 11,923,000 | 12,287,000 | 12,663,000 | 13,052,000 | - |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1104 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Snow and Ice Control | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Stormwater Monitoring Program | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | 225,000 | - |
| Annual SWPPP Update and Meeting | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Impaired Waters Tracking and Review | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Retrofit Plan | - | City Staff | City Staff | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Flood Mitigation Program H&H Model Development, Feasibility Analysis, and Project Prioritization | 2,010,000 | 1,953,000 | 1,448,000 | 1,183,000 | 1,183,000 | 160,000 | 160,000 | 160,000 | 160,000 | 160,000 | 160,000 | - |
| Ongoing Water Quality Modeling | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | City Staff | - |
| Sedimentation Pond Maintenance | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | - |
| **Part II – Capital Improvement Projects** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| * Refer to the City’s Public Works Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) webpage for additional project detail and staff contact information for all projects contained in the adopted 5-year CIP. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cip/WCMSP-178520 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ** All programs and costs after 2023 are not budgeted in the City’s CIP. | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| *** Costs presented are total cost which includes City local costs plus anticipated cost-share and grants by other organizations. | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Infiltration and Inflow Mitigation Program | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | - |
| **Sanitary Tunnel and Sewer Rehabilitation Program** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Overall Program Budget (after 2023, assumed) | 16,000,000 | 16,000,000 | 8,000,000 | 8,000,000 | 8,000,000 | 8,000,000 | 8,000,000 | 8,000,000 | 8,000,000 | 8,000,000 | 8,000,000 | - |
| 00001.2 | 715,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00001.3 | 10,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00002.2 | 1,748,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00002.3 | | 1,000,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00002.4 | 100,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00002.5 | 396,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00003.2 | 267,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00004.2 | 100,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00005.2 | 1,208,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00005.3 | | 3,000,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00005.4 | 200,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1105 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 00006.3 | 5,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00007.2 | 308,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00008.2 | 181,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00008.3 | 30,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00009.2 | 65,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00010.2 | 232,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00011.2 | 205,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00011.4 | 178,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00011.6 | 206,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00012.2 | 335,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00012.3 | 3,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00013.3 | 426,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00014.2 | 350,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00014.3 | 10,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00015.1 | 40,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00015.2 | 45,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00016.2 | 192,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00016.2 | 17,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00017.2 | 88,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00017.3 | 37,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00018.2 | 330,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00018.3 | 5,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00019.1 | 120,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00019.2 | - | 800,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00021.1 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00021.2 | - | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00022.1 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00022.2 | - | 1,000,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00023.1 | - | 500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00023.2 | - | 4,250,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00023.3 | - | - | 4,250,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00024.1 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

<!-- page 1106 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 00024.2 | - | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00026.2 | 90,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00026.3 | - | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00027.1 | 265,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00027.2 | - | - | 6,000,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00027.3 | 100,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00027.4 | - | 500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00028.1 | 70,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00028.2 | 10,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00029.1 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00029.2 | - | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00030.1 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00030.2 | - | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00031.1 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00031.2 | - | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00032.2 | - | 60,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00036.1 | 100,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00037.1 | 7,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| **Implementation of Environmental Protection Agency Regulations** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Overall Program Budget (after 2023, assumed) | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | - |
| Restoration and Stabilization of Historic Bassett Creek Channel | - | - | - | - | 500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Bryn Mawr Meadows | - | - | 250,000 | 250,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Bassett Creek Park Water Quality Improvement Project | - | - | - | - | - | - | 500,000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Dredging of Accumulated Sediment in Main Stem Bassett Creek just North of Highway 55, Wirth Park | - | - | - | 400,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Minnehaha Parkway Stormwater Management | - | - | 700,000 | 700,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Stormwater Volume and Pollutant Load Reduction | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | 500,000 | - | - |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1107 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Restoration of Eroded Riverbank Sites | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | 250,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Greening within the Public Right-of-Way/8th Street Green Infrastructure Pilot | 500,000 | 500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Northeast Green Campus Water Quality Improvements | 66,000 | 66,000 | 66,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Prospect North Partnership Water Quality Improvements | 1,750,000 | 1,750,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Scherer Park | 750,000 | 750,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Old Bassett Creek Tunnel | 660,000 | 660,000 | 660,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Water Works Park | 450,000 | 450,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Upper Harbor Terminal | - | 300,000 | 300,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Shingle Creek Restoration | - | 500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 10-100 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 11,310,000 |
| 10-450 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 15,640,000 |
| 10-460 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 10,960,000 |
| 54-100 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5,500,000 |
| 10-295 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 13,390,000 |
| 10-720 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 10,590,000 |
| 10-560 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 4,220,000 |
| 10-410 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 14,140,000 |
| 52-100 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 450,000 |
| 76-010 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8,840,000 |
| 10-500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9,940,000 |
| 10-680 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9,000,000 |
| 40-010 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,570,000 |
| 73-020 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,700,000 |
| 10-320 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 4,410,000 |
| 10-130 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,480,000 |
| Mississippi River Direct | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 880,000 |
| 10-420 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5,310,000 |
| 54-080 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,950,000 |
| 51-030 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 970,000 |

<!-- page 1108 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| 57-100 (A) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,540,000 |
| 10-530 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,800,000 |
| 10-250 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,200,000 |
| 10-180 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,900,000 |
| 20-215 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,670,000 |
| 54-040 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,720,000 |
| 71-070 (A) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,280,000 |
| 10-110 (A) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,430,000 |
| 70-055 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,400,000 |
| 10-640 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,930,000 |
| 10-570 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,710,000 |
| 10-230 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,930,000 |
| 10-490 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,500,000 |
| 10-240 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,170,000 |
| 53-160 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,460,000 |
| 70-330 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,520,000 |
| 10-660 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,310,000 |
| 10-170 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,200,000 |
| 10-120 (b) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,350,000 |
| 54-140 (A) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,070,000 |
| 40-140 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,880,000 |
| 10-565 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,830,000 |
| 10-150 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,960,000 |
| 20-210 (A) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,280,000 |
| 10-700 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,930,000 |
| 63-010 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5,530,000 |
| 72-020 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 270,000 |
| 72-040 (A) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,980,000 |
| 72-055 (B) PB | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 970,000 |
| 72-090 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 920,000 |
| 72-115 (A) PB | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,360,000 |
| 72-125 PB | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 890,000 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1109 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| 73-010 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 610,000 |
| 76-005 (A) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 601,000 |
| 76-020 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,220,000 |
| 76-030 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 110,000 |
| 76-040 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 70,000 |
| 76-050 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 40,000 |
| **Combined Sewer Overflow Improvements** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Overall Program Budget (after 2023, assumed) | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 | - |
| 180 | 136,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 176 | 145,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 177 | 210,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 001 | - | 692,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 117 | - | 825,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 188 | - | 180,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 189 | - | 202,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 095 | - | - | 375,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 108 | - | - | 960,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 154 | - | - | 377,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 195 | - | - | 277,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 138 | - | - | - | 117,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 139 | - | - | - | 190,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 158 | - | - | - | 52,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 153 | - | - | - | 500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 164 | - | - | - | 337,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 149 | - | - | - | 312,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 165 | - | - | - | 307,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 181 | - | - | - | - | 127,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 187 | - | - | - | - | 672,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 193 | - | - | - | - | 352,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 194 | - | - | - | - | 430,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 151 | - | - | - | - | - | 75,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 191 | - | - | - | - | - | 100,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1110 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 163 | - | - | - | - | - | 57,500 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 042 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 922,500 |
| 055 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 612,500 |
| 069 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 572,500 |
| 086 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 622,500 |
| 088 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 535,000 |
| 089 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 557,500 |
| 109 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 542,500 |
| 121 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 857,500 |
| 133 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 190,000 |
| 150 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 232,500 |
| 172 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 580,000 |
| 183 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 665,000 |
| 184 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 367,500 |
| 186 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 282,500 |
| 192 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 417,500 |
| **Storm Drains and Tunnels Rehabilitation Program** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Overall Program Budget (after 2023, assumed) | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 | - |
| 00001.1 | 250,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00001.2 | - | 250,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00002.1 | 300,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00003.1 | 185,740 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00004.1 | 45,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00005.1 | 150,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00005.2 | 150,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00006.1 | 160,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00006.2 | 565,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00008.1 | 650,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00008.2 | - | 650,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00009.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00009.2 | 80,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00010.1 | 165,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

<!-- page 1111 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| 00010.2 | 2,900,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00011.1 | 200,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00012.1 | 50,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00013.1 | 385,122 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00014.1 | 65,400 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00017.2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 120,000 |
| 00017.3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,100,000 |
| 00018.2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 180,000 |
| 00020.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 175,000 |
| 00021.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00021.1 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00022.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00022.2 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00023.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00023.2 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00024.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00024.2 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00025.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00025.2 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00026.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00026.2 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00027.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00027.2 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00028.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00028.2 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00029.1 | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 00029.2 | - | TBD | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| **I-35W Storm Tunnel Reconstruction** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Overall Program Budget (after 2023, assumed) | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 | - |
| Southwest Harriet Flood Mitigation – includes FA 29/30 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 72,000,000 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1112 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Hiawatha Golf Course Restoration | - | - | 970,000 | 970,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1NE Watershed Phase I Improvements | - | 3,200,000 | 3,200,000 | 3,200,000 | 3,200,000 | 3,200,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 13th and 2nd NE | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | TBD |
| FA 58 - Mid-City Pond | 2,905,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| FA 05 - 30th Avenue N to Dowling/Washburn to Morgan | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 32,000,000 to 64,000,000 |
| FA 06 - 30th Avenue N to 33rd, Dupont to Irving Avenue N | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | TBD |
| FA 08 - 3rd Street N and 23rd Avenue N | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,360,000 |
| FA 13 - Clinton Avenue S, 45th to 46th Street E | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,280,000 |
| FA 14 - E 40th Street, 4th to 5th Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,040,000 |
| FA 15 - 22nd Street W and Garfield Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 7,280,000 |
| FA 17 - 43rd Street W and Wentworth Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,310,000 |
| FA 18 - 50th and Wentworth Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8,790,000 |
| FA 21 - Bloomington Holding Pond | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 4,920,000 |
| FA 22 - Sibley Field | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5,420,000 |
| FA 25 - W 45th Street, Nicollet to 1st | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,510,000 |
| FA 29 and 30 - 50th to 51st, Zenith to York Avenue S, 51st Street W and Abbott Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 15,970,000 |
| FA 32 - E 49th Street and Stevens Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,150,000 |
| FA 36 - Victory Memorial Parkway and Xerxes Avenue | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 39 - 46th Avenue S, 36th to 37th Street E | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1113 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| FA 40 — W 38th Street and Kings Highway | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 41 — 27th Avenue NE and Stinson Boulevard | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 42 — 10th Avenue S and E 27th Street (Abbott Hospital) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 44 — 29th Avenue NE and Tyler Street NE | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 45 — W 33rd Street and Girard Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 47 — W 22nd Street and Emerson Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 48 — 2nd Street NW and Lowry Avenue NE | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 4,710,000 |
| FA 49 — 32nd Avenue NE and Garfield | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 50 — 3542 Polk Street NE/3547 Tyler Street NE (Alley) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 51 — 34th Avenue NE and Central Avenue NE | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 52 — 35th Avenue NE and 5th Street NE | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 53 — 27th Avenue NE and Randolph Street NE | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 54 — Shoreham Yards (Lake Sandy) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 55 — 16xx Lyn-Park Avenue N | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,580,000 |
| FA 56 — 56xx Xerxes Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 57 — 44xx Chowen Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 58 — Summer Street NE and McKinley Place | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 59 — Lyndale Avenue S, 26th to 27th Street E | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 60 — 2129 Emerson Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 61 — E 40th Street, Van Nest to I-35W | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,020,000 |
| FA 62 — 6th Avenue SE at 7th Street SE | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1114 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| FA 63 – 28th and Humboldt Avenue S | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| FA 64 – 2900 Upton, part of Logan Pond Watershed | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,100,000 |
| **Central City Parallel Storm Tunnel** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Design | 641,420 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Design | - | 1,000,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Construction | - | - | 9,500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Construction | - | - | - | 9,500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Construction | - | - | - | - | 9,500,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| **Reimbursable Storm Drain Construction Related to Street Reconstruction (Total Reconstruction Cost Listed)** | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Overall Program Budget (after 2023, assumed) | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 | - |
| PV054 | - | 18,474,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV095 | - | 14,220,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV125 | - | 2,840,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV135 | - | 9,365,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV118 | - | - | 22,960,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV139 | - | - | 4,965,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV147 | - | - | 1,295,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV141 | - | - | - | 14,575,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV113 | - | - | - | 2,115,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV142 | - | - | - | 3,120,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV137 | - | - | - | 8,575,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV152 | - | - | - | 5,440,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV156 | - | - | - | 4,499,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV122 | - | - | - | - | 3,340,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV123 | - | - | - | - | 6,650,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV143 | - | - | - | - | 5,640,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV154 | - | - | - | - | 2,055,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV146 | - | - | - | - | 2,160,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV092 | - | - | - | - | 1,025,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV138 | - | - | - | - | 4,510,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

<!-- page 1115 -->
| Project Name/Location | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | TBD |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| PV140 | - | - | - | - | 7,575,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV150 | - | - | - | - | - | 12,135,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV126 | - | - | - | - | - | 18,390,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV127 | - | - | - | - | - | 10,240,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV158 | - | - | - | - | - | 18,585,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV153 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 11,025,000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV132 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 14,555,000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV149 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9,905,000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV151 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 6,010,000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| PV157 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 11,250,000 | - | - | - | - | - |
| BR117 | - | - | 1,380,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

<!-- page 1116 -->
# Appendix L – Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Coordination Plan

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1117 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 1118 -->
# Coordination Plan

The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Watershed Management Plan (2018) indicates a desire to coordinate subwatershed planning with partners and align investments to improve water resources as development and redevelopment occurs. The City of Minneapolis (City) and MCWD have a history of partnership. The past successes have largely been the result of strong working relationships that promote regular conversations.

In 2017, the City, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), and the MCWD initiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to share responsibility for improving environmental quality within the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed of the City and recognize the benefit of working in close partnership at the intersection of the vision and mission of the respective organizations.

The goals of the MOU are to work together to coordinate and align policies, plans, and capital improvements to improve the natural and built environments within the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed in the City, and to work together to identify multi-jurisdictional initiatives to achieve complex water resource goals, such as:

* Reducing flooding.
* Achieving regional pollutant load reductions identified in total maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
* Reducing discharge volumes to, and peak flows within Minnehaha Creek.
* Eliminating combined sewer overflows and reducing inflow and infiltration to the sanitary sewer.

As articulated in the MOU, the City and the MCWD are committed to working together to integrate natural resource goals across disciplines to intersect with planned recreation improvements, infrastructure improvements, development, etc., to reduce cost and maximize public benefit.

The City and the MCWD will achieve the desired integration through the use of a predictable and repeatable annual work plan, identifying opportunities to establish shared agency priorities that can be subsequently incorporated into budgets, capital improvement plans, policy development, master planning efforts, and other agency-specific plans and initiatives.

These shared agency priorities are intended to benefit from collaborative planning, cost sharing, and the development of investment strategies that will attract additional outside funding, through the coordinated pursuit of grant funds, legislation, and other partnerships.

To better maintain awareness of needs and opportunities and to implement programs and project that meet the goals of the MCWD and the City, the partners will implement the following integrated planning process:

* The parties commit to working together by designating staff representatives to a Planning Team who are well informed about all respective agency goals, plans, and budgets.
* The Planning Team will collaborate at least quarterly to identify opportunities for shared agency priorities and be responsible for jointly recommending to policy-makers the alignment of policies,

<!-- page 1119 -->
long-range planning efforts, master plans, feasibility studies, capital improvement plans, and the operational and project budgets to support them.

*   The City of Minneapolis prepared budget requests for the Capital Long Range Improvement Committee (CLIC) in the first quarter of each calendar year to establish capital project and program priorities for five years.

*   The MCWD begins budget forecasting in the first quarter of each calendar year and produces a draft 2 to 3 year capital improvement plan, which it distributes for review in June of each calendar year.

*   On or before March of each year, the Planning Team will produce a draft 2 to 5 year Partnership Plan and Investment Strategy. The Plan will inform and be informed by the CLIC process and the development of the MCWD capital improvement plan. The Plan will identify opportunities for integrating planning, policy, and capital project initiatives across agencies. The Plan will include, but not necessarily be limited to:

    *   A brief initiative/project description.
    *   Estimated upfront costs, capital costs, and long-term operation and maintenance costs.
    *   Potential cost sharing opportunities across the agencies.
    *   Supporting outside funding and financing (grants, appropriations, bonding, etc.).
    *   Timelines for implementation including quarterly milestones.

*   The parties agree that this Partnership Plan is intended as a planning guide for coordinated project planning and implementation but does not formally obligate any party to implementation of any specific project; such commitments are to be addressed in specific project agreements.

*   On or before June 30 each year, the partners will present the Plan for review and a resolution of support by each party's governing board or council. For the City, the CLIC process and development and presentation of the annual budget will satisfy this provision. The Plan will inform the respective agencies' budget priorities.

*   Following review and support of the Plan by each agency, the Planning Team will jointly develop a project specific implementation plan to be memorialized into a project specific agreement. Project specific implementation plans will detail roles and responsibilities for further feasibility studies, design, bidding, construction management and oversight, and long-term operations and maintenance.

In addition, the City will:

*   Transmit the annual NPDES MS4 report to the MCWD.

*   Notify the MCWD of:

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1120 -->
* Institution and completion of small area plans and other focused development or redevelopment planning within the MCWD.

* Significant alterations within the City's MS4 system.

* Partnership opportunities for public communications and education.

## Coordination Plan Meeting Framework

Consistent with the MOU, quarterly Planning Team meetings will occur. To ensure coordinated progress, one of the quarterly Planning Team meetings will be dedicated to annual reporting on progress towards WRMP implementation. The meeting will include the City's Director of Surface Water and Sewers, Water Resources Regulatory Coordinator, Project Engineer responsible for development/redevelopment reviews, Project Managers for specific projects of interest, CPED Director of Long Range Planning or their designee, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's Director of Environmental Management. The City will accommodate reasonable requests from the MCWD for additional meetings and communication. Specific communication plans and schedules will be made for discrete projects or programs that arise that need more detailed accounting. The City's Water Resources Regulatory Coordinator will facilitate communication among appropriate parties based on the scope of the item.

## Opportunities for Regulatory Coordination

The City is eager to continue and expand cooperative work with MCWD in the following areas:

* CIP and Budget Planning: The City's process for this is described in more detail in Section 6 of the WRMP.

* Private Development and Redevelopment: The City will share known upcoming projects at the annual meeting. The City will inform permit applicants of the potential need for a MCWD permit and, when one is required, will not issue a City permit until the MCWD permit application has been made.

* Public Development and Redevelopment: Because of our strong working relationship with the MCWD, the City is continually seeking opportunities for coordination. This occurs through informal conversations as opportunities arise. Any future efforts including small area plans, rezoning studies, resiliency plans, or other planning activity will be shared at the annual meeting.

* Operation and Maintenance: The City will inform the MCWD of illicit discharges in a timely manner and share a summary of the illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) program at each annual meeting. Additionally, the City will share its MS4 inspection results through its NPDES MS4 Annual Report and at each annual meeting. If the MCWD discovers an illicit discharge in the City, they will notify the City in a timely manner, so action can be taken to address the issue.

* Addition of link to MCWD permitting website and/or handouts explaining District permitting to the development services website with a map of watersheds in the City.

* City Planners will inform applicants at the time of PDR application that permits may be required from the District and provide them with the necessary information to contact District staff.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1121 -->
District staff will be notified when development/redevelopment applications are distributed for staff review and comment.

*   District staff will be notified when PW-SWS staff has approved a development/redevelopment plan.

*   Existing and new City Planners assigned to areas within the District will receive guidance on the role of the District in development review and the desire of the District to work in partnership with private developers to achieve greater natural resource benefits.

## Capital Improvement Program Planning

The City will work closely with the MCWD to identify and implement water resource related partnership projects. Some upcoming opportunities for partnership include:

*   Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Repairs to Minnehaha Creek: The MCWD has been awarded monies from the FEMA to repair sections of streambank on Minnehaha Creek, damaged during the 2014 flooding. This work intersects with the clean water and recreation goals of the MPRB that has planned investments in trail improvements within areas of identified damage to Minnehaha Creek, is undertaking an ecosystems services plan for MPRB land, and has interest in developing a shared vision for the Minnehaha Creek corridor through the City of Minneapolis (discussed below). This work also intersects with the clean water and infrastructure management goals of the City that has planned storm sewer improvements within the areas of identified damage to Minnehaha Creek.

*   Minnehaha Parkway Regional Trail Master Plan: The master plan will be prepared between 2018 and 2019 in a three-agency collaboration between MPRB, the City, and the MCWD. This master plan will set the vision for the Minnehaha Parkway Regional Trail which encompasses 253 acres with 5.3 miles of parkway and includes most of the corridor along Minnehaha Creek. The MCWD has also been awarded monies from the Clean Water Legacy Fund to integrate the planning of FEMA damage repair (noted above) with opportunities to address water quality issues associated with stormwater discharges into Minnehaha Creek. Together, these efforts will improve the ecological integrity of the Minnehaha Creek corridor and reduce pollutant loading to Lake Hiawatha, and impaired water. The parties have a mutual interest in collaboratively planning this work to identify opportunities for the intersection of streambank improvements, stormwater management improvements, infrastructure improvements, recreation investments, ecosystems, and corridor plans. Together, these three agencies will prepare a master plan that will set a vision and priorities for future park improvements and management along the Minnehaha Creek corridor for the next 20 to 30 years.

*   Hiawatha Golf Course: The MPRB is working with a Community Advisory Committee to identify potential land use changes that support the reduced groundwater pumping scenario endorsed by the MPRB commissioners. Future changes will prioritize methods of addressing TMDL levels at Lake Hiawatha, water and habitat quality at Lake Hiawatha and Minnehaha Creek, localized flooding, local stormwater infrastructure function and capacity, and enhanced or expanded public recreation opportunities.

<!-- page 1122 -->
* Southwest Harriet Flood Mitigation in the Vicinity of Fulton, Linden Hills, and Lynnhurst Neighborhoods of the City: There is a need to integrate planning and implementation actions to address localized flooding southwest of Lake Harriet. The City completed the feasibility study in August 2018 in coordination with MCWD and the MPRB. Future selection of individual projects to mitigate flooding and improve water quality will be done recognizing programmed neighborhood park improvements and aligning with MCWD efforts to minimize pollutants and minimize peak flows to connect downstream waters.

* Outfall Repair along Minnehaha Creek: High priority reaches have been identified along Minnehaha Creek where stream restoration could improve streambank stability. Many of these reaches contain a number of storm sewer outfalls that require repair or improvement. There are opportunities to partner with planned transportation and park restoration projects to repair storm sewer outfalls, reduce erosion, improve the quality of the riparian area through bioengineering and native vegetation plantings, and improve fish and macroinvertebrate habitat.

* Minnehaha Creek Bacterial Source Identification Study: Due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria and exceedances of the *E. coli* water quality standards, the entire length of Minnehaha Creek is listed as impaired. The City has initiated a bacterial source identification study to identify the sources of *E. coli* within the City. To-date, this study has determined what the major sources of *E. coli* are, if they are human sources, if bacterial regrowth in the Creek and storm sewer system contributes to *E. coli* levels, and if groundwater is a source. The next steps of this study are to develop, study, and begin to implement bacteria management BMPs with the assistance of the MCWD and MPRB.

## Public and Private Project Coordination

The Minneapolis Development Review (MDR) is a service center administered by Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED). This service center receives private development and redevelopment project proposals and carries out the preliminary development review (PDR) process. Most development and redevelopment project proposals are routed through the PDR process. This process precedes issuance of building and other types of permits.

Public Works Surface Water and Sewers (PW-SWS) staff is involved in the PDR process to review sanitary sewer connections to public infrastructure, site drainage, and adherence to the City’s Stormwater Management Ordinance. PW-SWS staff refer applications to the MCWD for all development and redevelopment projects within the watershed. The MCWD will carry out its own review and issue and enforce permits or approvals.

CPED staff review development and redevelopment proposals with the guidance of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The City of Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes the policies, principals, and goals that guide development across the City. Minneapolis 2040 has 17 policies that directly address Environmental Systems within the City. These policies related to water resource management include:

* Manage the City’s surface waters, groundwaters, stormwater, wastewater, and drinking water equitably and sustainably, while minimizing the adverse impacts of climate change.

<!-- page 1123 -->
* Manage natural areas in and around surface waters, as well as stormwater ponds and other stormwater treatment facilities, as areas supportive of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

* Integrate water resource management into public and private projects in order to benefit natural systems.

* Ensure City infrastructure and residents are resilient to the shocks and stresses of climate change.

* Establish environmental justice frameworks for policy and regulation.

* Protect and improve soil health to sustain and promote plant, animal, and human health.

* Improve the tree canopy and urban forest.

* Require landscaping in conjunction with new development and that complements its surroundings and enhances the built environment.

* Improve the ecological functions of the natural environment in the urban context through planning, regulation, and cooperation.

Policies guiding management of environmental systems and impacts, including City operations, water resources, waste management and recycling, air quality, brownfields cleanup, and energy are implemented on a short- to long-term planning schedule. Implementation activities and opportunities to coordinate with MCWD are noted below:

| Term | Activity | Department |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Short-term | **Water Resources** – Continue to fund and implement programs per the management plan to maintain and improve sanitary sewer and stormwater infrastructure and protect water resources in the City. | ▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Projects within the MCWD watershed will be discussed by the Planning Team and progress reviewed at quarterly meetings.<br>▪ City and MCWD resiliency planning will be discussed by the Planning Team and evaluated at annual meetings. |
| Short-term | **Service Provision** – Continue to provide high quality City services to the community, including but not limited to public safety, water, sanitation, and health. | ▪ Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)<br>▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Regulatory Services<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ Fire Department<br>▪ Police Department<br>▪ Communications Department<br>▪ Coordinate with MCWD to make short-term infrastructure repairs to outfalls and provide operations and maintenance to best management practices. |
| Short-term | **Technical Assistance, Grant, and Loan Programs** – Continue to use and expand the portfolio of tools and programs linked to economic competitiveness goals such as grants for brownfield cleanups. | ▪ CPED<br>▪ Public Works will coordinate with MCWD if/when projects may be eligible for funding by MCWD to improve water quality or meet other shared goals. |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1124 -->
| Term | Activity | Department |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Long-term | **Environmental Impacts of Transportation** – The City will work to encourage bicycle and transit use to reduce environmental impacts created from single-occupancy trips. The progress made on achieving climate action goals in the comprehensive plan will be tracked and measured as part of City climate goals. | ▪ CPED<br>▪ Public Works Department<br>▪ Health Department<br>▪ City Coordinator’s Office<br>▪ Coordinate with MCWD on transportation projects that may have an impact on water quality of may offer an opportunity for water quality improvement. |

Small Area Plans outline a long-range vision for land use and development in very specific areas of the City. A list of completed Small Area Plans is available in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan at:
https://minneapolis2040.com/small-area-plans/

Information on approved plans including the Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth, Citywide and Multi-Sector Plans, and Rezoning Studies along with maps of current planning and development activities and all current planning applications can be found at:
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/planning/index.htm

For projects that propose changes to the City’s publicly-owned infrastructure (streets, lights, public utilities, etc.), the Public Works Department coordinates the Capital Projects Task Force (CPTF) process of review for compliance with the City’s requirements for working within the public right-of-way. PW-SWS staff will refer City Project Managers to MCWD for all public projects within the watershed. The MCWD will carry out its own review and issue and enforce permits or approvals.

PW-SWS staff will communicate with MCWD at quarterly meetings about development and redevelopment projects and public infrastructure projects that span jurisdictions and include stormwater BMPs.

<!-- page 1125 -->
# Appendix G
Review and Approval

<!-- page 1126 -->
**PLAN REVIEW & APPROVAL**

On March 22, 2018, City of Minneapolis staff contacted adjacent and affected jurisdictions to notify them of the availability of the City’s draft comprehensive plan. A copy of that communication is included in this appendix. This initial draft of the plan included all substantive content in the body of the document prior to review by elected and appointed officials and the public, at this time the appendix items were partially complete. Public comment on the document for the purpose of creating a second draft for consideration by elected and appointed officials was open until July 22, 2018, while city staff encouraged adjacent and affected jurisdictions to submit comments by September 22, 2018. The communications received by adjacent and affected jurisdictions are included in this appendix.

On September 28, 2018, a final draft of the plan was published online that included a complete appendix. A final version of the document recommended for submittal to the Metropolitan Council was approved by the City of Minneapolis City Council and Mayor on December 7, 2018. The resolution authorizing this action is available in this appendix.

<!-- page 1127 -->
**MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT PLAN TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL**

<<FIGURE>>

**Resolution No. 2018R-411** | **City of Minneapolis** | **File No. 2018-00770**
--- | --- | ---

**Author:** Bender | **Committee:** COW | **Public Hearing:** Nov 14, 2018
**Passage:** Dec 7, 2018 | **Publication:** DEC 15 2018

| RECORD OF COUNCIL VOTE | | | | |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| COUNCIL MEMBER | AYE | NAY | ABSTAIN | ABSENT |
| Bender | X | | | |
| Jenkins | X | | | |
| Johnson | X | | | |
| Gordon | X | | | |
| Reich | X | | | |
| Fletcher | X | | | |
| Cunningham | X | | | |
| Ellison | X | | | |
| Warsame | X | | | |
| Goodman | X | | | |
| Cano | X | | | |
| Schroeder | X | | | |
| Palmisano | | X | | |

**MAYOR ACTION**

[X] APPROVED
[ ] VETOED

<<FIGURE>>
MAYOR

DEC 10 2018
DATE

*Certified an official action of the City Council*

ATTEST: <<FIGURE>>
CITY CLERK

Presented to Mayor: DEC 07 2018
Received from Mayor: DEC 10 2018

***

**Authorizing submittal of the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council.**

Whereas, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.864 requires each local governmental unit to review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan system plans and ensure its fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and

Whereas, the City Council approved a resolution directing staff of the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development to update the city's comprehensive plan on April 1, 2016; and

Whereas, the City Council Received and Filed the comprehensive plan update schedule, comprehensive plan mission and values, and civic engagement plan summary on April 1, 2016; and

<!-- page 1128 -->
# Appendix G - Review & Approval

### MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT PLAN TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

Whereas, the City Council Received and Filed a draft Civic Engagement Plan for Minneapolis 2040, the process to update the citywide Comprehensive Plan on July 1, 2016; and

Whereas, the City Council approved the Minneapolis 2040 Civic Engagement Calendar on October 7, 2016; and

Whereas, the City Council adopted fourteen Comprehensive Plan goals on April 2, 2017; and

Whereas, the final draft of the plan is the product of a thoughtful two-year effort, integrates comments received during the Civic Engagement period ending July 2018, and is based on the fourteen Council-adopted goals furthering the City's commitment to equitable outcomes in the built, natural, and economic environment; and

Whereas, Minnesota Statutes Sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their "decennial" reviews by December 31, 2018; and

Whereas, the City Council, Planning Commission, and the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development Staff have prepared a proposed Comprehensive Plan intended to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and Metropolitan Council guidelines and procedures; and

Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.858, the proposed Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected special districts and school districts for review and comment on March 22, 2018, and the statutory six-month review and comment period has elapsed; and

Whereas, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan and all public comments, and thereafter submitted its recommendations to this Council; and

Whereas, the City conducted public hearings on October 29, 2018, and November 14, 2018, relative to the adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan; and

Whereas, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan and those recommendations, public comments, and comments from adjacent jurisdictions and affected districts; and

Whereas, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.858 requires a local governmental unit to submit its proposed comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council following recommendation by the planning commission and after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the local governmental unit; and

Whereas, based on its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Planning Commission and staff recommendations, the City Council is ready to submit its proposed plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.864; and

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis:

<!-- page 1129 -->
**MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT PLAN TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL**

That the Department of Community Planning and Economic Development is hereby directed to submit the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2018, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.864.

<!-- page 1130 -->
# LETTER SENT FOR NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONAL REVIEWS IN MARCH 2018

<<FIGURE>>

**Community Planning and Economic Development**
105 Fifth Ave. S. - Room 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
TEL 612.673.5095
**www.minneapolismn.gov**

March 22, 2018

Name
Address
Address

Dear,

I’m very pleased to let you know that as of today, the City of Minneapolis has posted our Draft Comprehensive Plan for review and comment by our adjacent and affected jurisdictions. Per Minnesota Statute 473.858 Subd. 2 and the Metropolitan Council, we are distributing the proposed Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update for your review and comment via this online link, www.Minneapolis2040.com. Please keep in mind that we consider this document a draft and we will be adding additional figures and information in the coming weeks. We will be sure to provide you updated e-mail notification when we add such information.

We respectfully request that you review the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and send any comments or indication of no comment to my attention at CPED-Long Range Planning, 105 Fifth Ave. South - Room 200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 no later than September 22, 2018. You may also send a response via e-mail to me at heather.worthington@minneapolismn.gov.

In the event that there are questions regarding our Comprehensive Plan Update, or if additional information is needed, please contact me at heather.worthington@minneapolismn.gov.

On behalf of the City of Minneapolis, we thank you in advance for your assistance and for your prompt response.

Warmest regards,

*Heather Worthington*

Heather Worthington
Director, Long Range Planning
Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)

cc. Name(s) of cc. from each City or Organization (See list below)
David Frank, CPED-Executive Director
Jack Byers, Manager of CPED-Long Range Planning
Michael Larson, Sector Representative, Metropolitan Council

Name of Sender ____________________________ Date ____________________________

Signature of Sender ___________________________________________________________

Adjacent or Affected Jurisdiction Name: ___________________________

<!-- page 1131 -->
### LETTER SENT FOR NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONAL REVIEWS IN MARCH 2018

Please check the appropriate box:
- [ ] We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update, do not have any comments, and are therefore waiving further review.
- [ ] We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update and offer the following comments (attach additional sheets if necessary)

________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________

Name of Reviewer \___________________________ Date \___________________________

Signature of Reviewer \_________________________________________________________

<!-- page 1132 -->
**REVIEW BY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT**

<<FIGURE>>

March 22, 2018

Mark Doneux Administrator
Capitol Region Watershed District
1410 Energy Park Dr. Suite 4
St. Paul, MN 55108

Dear Mark Doneux,

I’m very pleased to let you know that as of today, the City of Minneapolis has posted our Draft Comprehensive Plan for review and comment by our adjacent and affected jurisdictions. Per Minnesota Statute 473.858 Subd. 2 and the Metropolitan Council, we are distributing the proposed Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update for your review and comment via this online link, www.Minneapolis2040.com. Please keep in mind that we consider this document a draft and we will be adding additional figures and information in the coming weeks. We will be sure to provide you updated e-mail notification when we add such information.

We respectfully request that you review the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and send any comments or indication of no comment to my attention at CPED-Long Range Planning, 105 Fifth Ave. South - Room 200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 no later than September 22, 2018. You may also send a response via e-mail to me at heather.worthington@minneapolismn.gov.

In the event that there are questions regarding our Comprehensive Plan Update, or if additional information is needed, please contact me at heather.worthington@minneapolismn.gov.

On behalf of the City of Minneapolis, we thank you in advance for your assistance and for your prompt response.

Warmest regards,

*Heather Worthington*

Heather Worthington
Director, Long Range Planning
Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)

cc. Name(s) of cc. from each City or Organization (See list below)
David Frank, CPED-Executive Director
Jack Byers, Manager of CPED-Long Range Planning
Michael Larson, Sector Representative, Metropolitan Council

Name of Sender \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Date \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Signature of Sender \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Adjacent or Affected Jurisdiction Name: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

<!-- page 1133 -->
**REVIEW BY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT**

Please check the appropriate box:
X We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update, do not have any comments, and are therefore waiving further review.
☐ We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update and offer the following comments (attach additional sheets if necessary)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Name of Reviewer Mark Doneux Date 3/28/18
Signature of Reviewer Mark Doneux

<!-- page 1134 -->
**REVIEW BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY**

March 22, 2018

Julie Jones Planning Manager
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave NE
Fridley , MN 55432

Dear Julie Jones,

I'm very pleased to let you know that as of today, the City of Minneapolis has posted our Draft Comprehensive Plan for review and comment by our adjacent and affected jurisdictions. Per Minnesota Statute 473.858 Subd. 2 and the Metropolitan Council, we are distributing the proposed Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update for your review and comment via this online link, www.Minneapolis2040.com Please keep in mind that we consider this document a draft and we will be adding additional figures and information in the coming weeks. We will be sure to provide you updated e-mail notification when we add such information.

We respectfully request that you review the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and send any comments or indication of no comment to my attention at CPED-Long Range Planning, 105 Fifth Ave. South - Room 200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 no later than September 22, 2018. You may also send a response via e-mail to me at heather.worthington@minneapolismn.gov.

In the event that there are questions regarding our Comprehensive Plan Update, or if additional information is needed, please contact me at heather.worthington@minneapolismn.gov.

On behalf of the City of Minneapolis, we thank you in advance for your assistance and for your prompt response.

Warmest regards,

*Heather Worthington*

Heather Worthington
Director, Long Range Planning
Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED)

cc. Name(s) of cc. from each City or Organization (See list below)
David Frank, CPED-Executive Director
Jack Byers, Manager of CPED-Long Range Planning
Michael Larson, Sector Representative, Metropolitan Council

Name of Sender Julie Jones Date 6-26-18

Signature of Sender *Julie Jones*

Adjacent or Affected Jurisdiction Name: City of Fridley

Please check the appropriate box:
X We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update, do not have any comments, and are therefore waiving further review.
$\square$ We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update and offer the following comments (attach additional sheets if necessary)

Name of Reviewer Julie Jones Date 6-16-18

Signature of Reviewer *Julie Jones*

<!-- page 1135 -->
**REVIEW BY THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY**

**From:** Zimmerman, Jason [mailto:JZimmerman@goldenvalleymn.gov]
**Sent:** Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:46 PM
**To:** Worthington, Heather M <heather.worthington@minneapolismn.gov>
**Subject:** Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update

Heather,

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review Minneapolis’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City of Golden Valley has no comments.

Jason

***

**Jason Zimmerman, AICP** | Planning Manager | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427
763.593.8099 | 763.593.8109 (Fax) | 763.593.3968 (TTY)
jzimmerman@goldenvalleymn.gov

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1136 -->
**REVIEW BY THE CITY OF LAUDERDALE**

<<FIGURE>>

CITY OF LAUDERDALE
LAUDERDALE CITY HALL
1891 WALNUT STREET
LAUDERDALE, MN 55113
651-792-7650
651-631-2066 FAX
MARY.GAASCH@LAUDERDALEMN.ORG

Name of Sender/Reviewer : Heather Butkowski
Date: July 24, 2018

Signature of Sender/Reviewer \_\_Heather Butkowski\_\_

Adjacent or Affected Jurisdiction Name: Lauderdale

Please check the appropriate box:
X We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update, do not have any comments, and are therefore waiving further review.
\_\_ We have reviewed the proposed Plan Update and offer the following comments (attach additional sheets if necessary)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

<!-- page 1137 -->
**REVIEW BY RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT**

**From:** Kyle Axtell [mailto:KAxtell@ricecreek.org]
**Sent:** Friday, March 30, 2018 10:56 AM
**To:** Worthington, Heather M
**Cc:** Phil Belfiori
**Subject:** Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update

Heather,

The Rice Creek WD’s jurisdiction does not include any areas within the City of Minneapolis. We have no comment on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and waive further review.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

Kyle Axtell
Water Resource Specialist / Project Manager
Rice Creek Watershed District
4325 Pheasant Ridge Dr. NE #611
Blaine, MN 55449-4539
P: (763) 398-3072
F: (763) 398-3088
E: kaxtell@ricecreek.org

<!-- page 1138 -->
# Appendix H

Parks and Trails

This appendix provides supporting content for regional parks and trails related policies and satisfies the Metropolitan Council requirements related to regional parks and trails.

<!-- page 1139 -->
## REGIONAL PARKS IN MINNEAPOLIS

Minneapolis has received top ranking for parks systems among the 100 largest U.S. cities from the Trust for Public Land multiple years in a row as of 2018. This recognition is based on several different factors, including total acreage within the city. Regional parks within Minneapolis dramatically increase the total acreage of the city reserved as parks and open space while serving many different functions for residents and visitors.

The Minneapolis Chain of Lakes is perhaps the most prominent of the regional parks, a very popular destination that features a number of different amenities and activities, including swimming, boating, concessions, programmed performances, and more. Connected to the Chain of Lakes by the Grand Rounds Scenic Byway, Nokomis-Hiawatha Regional Park provides further variety in this vein, offering opportunities to swim, ski, play ball, picnic, and more. Theodore Wirth Regional Park similarly acts as a regional destination for a great deal of outdoor activities, with a particular bent towards outdoor sports such as hiking, mountain biking, and skiing.

Several regional parks span the length of the Mississippi River in Minneapolis: Minnehaha, Mississippi Gorge, Central Mississippi Riverfront, Above the Falls, and North Mississippi regional parks. As with the Chain of Lakes, public access to the river has been preserved along much of its length as a result of prudent planning. Minnehaha Regional Park provides a strong draw for visitors through many different amenities including Minnehaha Falls, a full service restaurant, several historical sites, and an expansive off-leash dog park. The Mississippi Gorge provides a scenic experience where visitors can experience the river from the parkways or hike down to the shore. The Central Mississippi Riverfront allows visitors easier access to the water via trails, landscaped parks, and other improvements. In the Above the Falls area, agencies are cooperating to restore public access to the river where it has been lost in order to create a more cohesive park experience in this portion of the city. North Mississippi Regional Park provides a mix of improved and natural areas falling somewhere between that of the Central Riverfront and the Gorge.

## REGIONAL TRAILS AND SEARCH CORRIDORS IN MINNEAPOLIS

Minneapolis’ award winning park system and Regional Parks in Minneapolis are supported by a robust network of regional trails serving both transportation and recreation purposes. As the City of Minneapolis seeks to further expand and improve its bicycle network to serve people of all ages and abilities, the regional trail system of off street paths in Minneapolis helps form the foundation of this network.

Several of these trails, including the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Trail, Minnehaha Parkway, East and West River Parkways, and others provide easy access to and along the Mississippi River and Minneapolis’ lakes. These trails are just as important to the long-term preservation of public access to natural features in Minneapolis as the setting aside of the land itself, as the easy access they provide helps reinforce the value of these Minneapolis parks to the public. These trails also serve as important transportation corridors to and within Minneapolis

A number of other regional trails also form important connections for transportation and recreation around the city and region. The Cedar Lake Trail leads out of Downtown Minneapolis to the southwest, connecting with the Luce Line and Kenilworth Regional Trails to give users access to destinations in surrounding suburbs. Farther North in Minneapolis, a number of Trails including Columbia Parkway, the Northeast Diagonal, Ridgeway Parkway, Victory Memorial Parkway, St Anthony Parkway, and Shingle Creek Regional Trails all provide important connections into, out of, and along the top most portion of the city. Local bike and trail facilities provide connections between these two areas for cyclists and pedestrians.

A number of these mentioned trails and parkways comprise the Grand Rounds Scenic Byway System, described by the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board as “one of the

<!-- page 1140 -->
# Appendix H - Parks and Trails

country’s longest continuous systems of public urban parkways.” The Grand Rounds, an invaluable asset to Minneapolis and the region, however, remains incomplete, as there is currently a gap from the University of Minnesota to north of Interstate 35W at Stinson Boulevard and Ridgway Parkway. This gap has been identified as Regional Trail Search Corridor, and is also known as the Grand Rounds Missing Link.

Planning Work has been carried out by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board regarding the Grand Rounds Missing Link. A Master Plan for the Missing Link was created in 2009. That Plan is being updated as part of the East of the River Park Master Plan, a draft of which was open for public comment from November 13 to December 18 of 2018.

<!-- page 1141 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 1: MAP OF REGIONAL PARKS**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 1142 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 2: MAP OF REGIONAL TRAIL SEARCH CORRIDORS**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 1143 -->
# Appendix H - Parks and Trails

<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 3: MAP OF REGIONAL TRAILS**
SOURCE: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS

<!-- page 1144 -->
# Appendix I

Water Supply

<!-- page 1145 -->
# Water Supply Plan Amendment

City of Minneapolis

Department of Public Works

Water Treatment and Distribution Services

May 2019

<!-- page 1146 -->
# City of Minneapolis

## Department of Public Works

### Water Treatment and Distribution Services

May 2019

<<FIGURE>>

Prepared By: Chad M. Donnelly, PE – Program Administrator

<<FIGURE>>

Reviewed By: Annika Bankston, PE – Superintendent of Water Plant Operations

<<FIGURE>>

Approved By: Glen Gerads, Director – Water Treatment and Distribution Services

<!-- page 1147 -->
# Contents

**Introduction................................................................................................................................ 6**

**General Information .................................................................................................................. 7**

### 1.0 Water Supply System Description and Evaluation.................................................................. 8

A. Analysis of Water Demands .................................................................................................. 8

B. Treatment and Storage Capacity ......................................................................................... 12

C. Water Sources...................................................................................................................... 14

D. Future Demand Projections ................................................................................................. 16

E. Resource Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 19

F. Water Level Data.................................................................................................................. 22

G. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) ........................................................................................... 25

### 2.0 Emergency Preparedness Procedures ................................................................................. 28

A. Federal Emergency Response Plan ...................................................................................... 28

B. Operational Contingency Plan ............................................................................................. 28

C. Emergency Response Procedures ......................................................................................... 29

D. Procedure for Augmenting Water Supplies ......................................................................... 30

E. Allocation and Demand Reduction Procedures ................................................................... 31

F. Enforcement ........................................................................................................................ 33

### 3.0 Water Conservation Plan.................................................................................................... 36

A. Progress since 2006 - Is this your community's first Water Supply Plan? ............................ 37

B. Triggers for Allocation and Demand Reduction Actions ....................................................... 43

C. Conservation Objectives and Strategies ............................................................................... 43

D. Regulation ............................................................................................................................ 51

E. Retrofitting Programs .......................................................................................................... 51

### 4.0 Items for Metropolitan Area Communities ......................................................................... 53

A. Water Demand Projections through 2040 ........................................................................... 53

B. Potential Water Supply Issues ............................................................................................. 53

C. Proposed Alternative Approaches to Meet Extended Water Demand Projections................ 53

<!-- page 1148 -->
D. Value-Added Water Supply Planning Efforts (Optional) .......................................................................... 54

# List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Well Records and Maintenance Summaries (Not Applicable)

Appendix 2 Water Level Monitoring

Appendix 3 Water Level Graphs for Each Water Supply Well (Not Applicable)

Appendix 4 Capital Improvement Plan

Appendix 5 Emergency Telephone List

Appendix 6 Cooperative Agreements for Emergency Services (Not Applicable)

Appendix 7 Municipal Critical Water Deficiency Ordinance

Appendix 8 Graph Showing Annual Per Capita Water Demand for Each Customer Category During the Last Ten-Years

Appendix 9 Water Rate Structure

Appendix 10 Adopted or Proposed Regulations to Reduce Demand or Improve Water Efficiency

Appendix 11 Implementation Checklist

<!-- page 1149 -->
# List of Tables

Table 1 General Information Regarding this WSP

Table 2 Historic Water Demand

Table 3 Larger Volume Users

Table 4 Water Treatment Capacity and Treatment Processes

Table 5 Storage Capacity

Table 6 Water Sources and Status

Table 7 Project Annual Water Demand

Table 8 Source Water Quality

Table 9 Water Level Data

Table 10 Natural Resources Impacts

Table 11 Source Water Protection Plan

Table 12 Adequacy of Water Supply System

Table 13 Proposed Future Installations

Table 14 Alternative Water Sources

Table 15 Emergency Response Plan Role

Table 16 Interconnections

Table 17 Utilizing Surface Water

Table 18 Water Use Priorities

Table 19 Emergency Demand Reduction

Table 20 Community Engagements – Water Conservation

Table 21 Implementation of Previous Ten-Year Conservation Plan

Table 22 Short and Long-term Demand Reduction Conditions – Triggers and Actions

Table 23 Customer Meters

Table 24 Water Source Meters

Table 25 Community Strategies and Timeframe to Reduce Residential Per Capita Demand

Table 26 Community Strategies and Timeframe to Reduce Institutional, Commercial Industrial Agriculture and Non-Revenue Water

Table 27 Rate Structure

<!-- page 1150 -->
# List of Tables (cont.)

Table 28 Additional Strategies to Reduce Water Use and Support Wellhead Protection

Table 29 Regulations for Short-term Reductions in Demand and Long-term Improvements in Water Efficiencies

Table 30 Retrofitting Programs

Table 31 Current and Proposed Education Programs

Table 32 Local Controls and Schedule to Protect Drinking Water Supply Management Areas

<!-- page 1151 -->
# Introduction

This Water Supply Plan (WSP) is prepared by the Water Treatment and Distribution Services (WTDS) Division of the City of Minneapolis’ Public Work Department. The plan is prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103G.291 and is organized in accordance with the guidelines established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - Division of Ecological and Water Resources. This WSP shall also serve as the requisite supplemental document for the 2040 Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan as required by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act.

The WSP is divided into four parts:

**PART 1:WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION**

This chapter addresses the adequacy of the existing water source and supply systems to maintain current and projected water demands.

**PART 2:EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES**

This chapter lists emergency response procedures and develops actions and protocols necessary to improve emergency preparedness.

**PART 3:WATER CONSERVATION PLAN**

This chapter identifies programs and strategies focused on reducing water demand within the market served by WTDS, improve the efficiency in water use, and minimize water losses and waste.

**PART 4:METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ITEMS**

This chapter relates to comprehensive plan requirements that apply to communities in the seven County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.

<!-- page 1152 -->
# General Information

Provided below in Table 1 is the DNR permit information assigned to WTDS along with the point of contact associated with the development, implementation, and record keeping associated with this WSP. The administrator of the WSP will be supported by WTDS staff as required.

Table 1 – General Information Regarding this WSP

| Requested Information | Description |
| :--- | :--- |
| **DNR Water Appropriation Permit Number(s)** | 1978-6216 |
| **Ownership** | Public |
| **Metropolitan Council Area** | Ramsey County |
| **Street Address** | 4300 Marshall St NE |
| **City, State, Zip** | Minneapolis, MN 55417 |
| **Contact Person Name** | Chad Donnelly, PE |
| **Title** | Program Administrator |
| **Phone Number** | 612-661-4903 |
| **MDH Supplier Classification** | Municipal |

<!-- page 1153 -->
# 1.0 Water Supply System Description and Evaluation

### A. ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMANDS

WTDS provides and maintains drinking water service to the many consumers both living and doing business within the City of Minneapolis. Drinking water is also provided through wholesale contracts to several adjacent municipalities including Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope, Edina, Bloomington, and temporarily New Brighton. Wholesale accounts are also maintained for the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport and the Fort Snelling Air Force Reserve (Fort Snelling). The aforementioned municipal accounts, along with the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport and Fort Snelling, are identified herein as Wholesale customers.

The data tabulations provided in this section of the WSP are the critical metrics that provide WTDS with the means to perform the important analyses for water consumption and conservation. Data is collected and made record of throughout the year so that WTDS can assess, in real-time, the demand of the consumer base and health of the water distribution system from the perspective of non-revenue water. Further discussion of consumption and conservation are provided in the later sections of this document. The Water use for the past 10 years is tabulated below in Table 2. This table also includes the average and maximum day demands along with the corresponding per-capita use rates.

<!-- page 1154 -->
Table 2 – Historic Water Demand

| Year | Population Served (Minneapolis)* | Total Connections | Residential Water Delivered (MG) | C/I/I Water Delivered (MG) | Water Used for Non-Essential (MG) | Wholesale Deliveries (MG) | Total Water Delivered (MG) | Total Water Pumped (MG) | Percent Unmetered/ Unaccounted | Average Daily Demand (MGD) | Max. Daily Demand. (MGD) | Date of Max Demand | Residential per capita Demand (GPCD)** | Total per capita Demand (GPCD)** |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 2006 | 387,970 | 102,753 | 8,489 | 6,046 | | 4,502 | 19,037 | 22,230 | 14.36% | 60.90 | 117.15 | | 59.95 | 125.19 |
| 2007 | 392,462 | 102,800 | 8,384 | 6,109 | | 4,560 | 19,052 | 22,283 | 14.50% | 61.05 | 115.73 | | 58.53 | 123.72 |
| 2008 | 390,131 | 102,800 | 8,045 | 5,819 | | 4,169 | 18,033 | 21,417 | 15.80% | 58.52 | 102.70 | | 56.50 | 121.12 |
| 2009 | 386,691 | 97,212 | 8,065 | 5,614 | | 4,439 | 18,118 | 21,085 | 14.07% | 57.77 | 109.34 | | 57.14 | 117.94 |
| 2010 | 382,578 | 97,212 | 7,708 | 5,479 | | 3,604 | 16,792 | 19,930 | 15.75% | 54.60 | 84.84 | | 55.20 | 116.91 |
| 2011 | 387,873 | 98,543 | 7,512 | 5,294 | | 4,159 | 16,965 | 20,084 | 15.53% | 55.02 | 91.26 | | 53.06 | 112.48 |
| 2012 | 392,008 | 99,874 | 7,821 | 5,565 | | 4,367 | 17,752 | 20,577 | 13.73% | 56.22 | 95.90 | | 54.66 | 113.29 |
| 2013 | 400,938 | 97,891 | 7,557 | 5,331 | | 3,897 | 16,786 | 19,778 | 15.13% | 54.04 | 103.80 | | 51.64 | 108.52 |
| 2014 | 411,273 | 97,891 | 7,239 | 5,256 | | 3,559 | 16,054 | 19,666 | 18.37% | 53.73 | 85.04 | | 48.23 | 107.30 |
| 2015 | 412,173 | 97,500 | 7,177 | 4,874 | 0 | 3,795 | 15,846 | 19,179 | 17.38% | 52.40 | 96.00 | 6/12/2015 & 9/4/2015 | 47.67 | 102.17 |
| 2016 | 414,456 | 97,500 | 7,305 | 4,849 | 0 | 4,121 | 16,275 | 19,849 | 18.01% | 54.23 | 87.10 | 7/21/2016 | 48.29 | 103.97 |
| 2017[^p1154-1] | 416,700[^p1154-1] | 97,500[^p1154-1] | 4,714[^p1154-1] | 3,096[^p1154-1] | 0 | 3,137[^p1154-1] | 10,974[^p1154-1] | 13,746[^p1154-1] | 20.16[^p1154-1] | 37.56[^p1154-1] | 87.10[^p1154-1] | 6/8/2017[^p1154-1] | 31.17[^p1154-1] | 69.75[^p1154-1] |

**MG** – Million Gallons  **MGD** – Million Gallons per Day  **GPCD** – Gallons per Capita Day

■ = No Previous Data

\* = US Census Bureau
\*\* = MPLS Only
[^p1154-1]: = Data January 1, 2017 thru August 31, 2017

<!-- page 1155 -->
A listing of the top ten water consumers is provided in Table 3. The customer name, use category, gallons recorded, and percent of total water delivered for the 2015 reporting year are provided therein. Attempts were made by WTDS staff to ascertain the use or implementation of conservation measures by these customers. The results of this review revealed little detail pertinent to this plan. This field is therefore listed as Unknown.

<!-- page 1156 -->
### Table 3 – Large Volume Users

| Customer | Use Category (Residential, Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, Wholesale) | Amount Used (Gallons per Year) | Percent of Total Annual Water Delivered | Implementing Water Conservation Measures? (Yes/No/Unknown) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| COVANTA | INDUSTRIAL (Energy) | 202,732,010 | 1.3% | UNKNOWN |
| MINNEAPOLIS ENERGY CENTER | INDUSTRIAL (Energy) | 76,693,075 | 0.5% | UNKNOWN |
| ABBOTT NORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL | COMMERCIAL (Health and Wellness) | 53,356,896 | 0.3% | UNKNOWN |
| VETERANS ADMIN MEDICAL CENTER | GOVERNMENT (Health and Wellness) | 53,069,648 | 0.3% | UNKNOWN |
| FAIRVIEW HEALTH SERVICES | COMMERCIAL (Health and Wellness) | 51,786,744 | 0.3% | UNKNOWN |
| 453300 HILTON HOTELS, MAIL STOP #7 | COMMERCIAL | 46,474,084 | 0.3% | UNKNOWN |
| UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA | INDUSTRIAL (Education) | 35,340,116 | 0.2% | UNKNOWN |
| 650 IDS CENTER | COMMERCIAL | 32,148,185 | 0.2% | UNKNOWN |
| NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER | COMMERCIAL (Health and Wellness) | 3,0641,613 | 0.2% | UNKNOWN |
| MARRIOTT | COMMERCIAL | 29,144,017 | 0.2% | UNKNOWN |

<!-- page 1157 -->
## B. TREATMENT AND STORAGE CAPACITY

Outlined in Table 4 is a tabulation of the treatment processes employed by WTDS for source water treatment. Plant names along with the methods and types of treatment are provided therein. These methods are used daily and throughout the year in order to satisfy safe drinking water criteria.

It is noteworthy to mention that WTDS is in the process of designing and letting two construction projects to, one, rehabilitate the Fridley Filtration Plant, and two, re-design the recarbonation system to capture new technology and enhance water quality. A significant change to the treatment process will include a change-over to biologically active granular activated carbon in-lieu of conventional media (anthracite) employed currently to filter the water. The recarbonation system is primarily an upgrade from the existing treatment methods to that employed within current industry standards of today. The projects are expected to be underway in 2016 and completed by 2018.

<u>Treatment Description:</u>

The basic treatment process begins with screening of debris at the raw water intakes at Pump Station No. 5. During times of problematic taste and odors, potassium permanganate can be added to the raw water to lessen these aesthetic affects to the water. Raw water is pumped to the Fridley Softening Plant where lime is added along with ferric chloride for removal of organics and other solids by coagulation and precipitation. The water is softened in twelve precipitator cones with sludge withdrawn from the bottom of each cone. The sludge/solids are pumped to the dewatering plant for dewatering and recycling. The softened water is recarbonated using carbon dioxide gas to adjust the pH level. Powdered activated carbon is added ahead of softening or at the head of the recarbonation chambers to address taste and odor issues.

The water is routed to either to the Fridley Filter Plant via Pump Station No. 6 or to the Columbia Heights plant via Pump Station No. 4. A softened water basin stores the water prior to treatment at Columbia Heights. At both locations, the softened water is chlorinated and ammonia added to form combined chloramines.

At Columbia Heights, the settled water is directed to the ultrafiltration membrane plant. At Fridley, the water is filtered by dual granular media filters. Following filtration, the chloramine residual is adjusted to the desired level, fluoride is added, and ortho-polyphosphate (a corrosion inhibitor) is added. Finished water is stored in underground reservoirs prior to distribution or transmission to the Hilltop reservoir system. Pump Station Nos. 5, 7, 8, and 9 draw water from the finished water reservoirs. Pump Stations Nos. 1 and 3 serve to direct backwash water residuals or coagulation basin drainage from the filtration plants and coagulation chambers to the head of softening or the Dewatering Plant. Additionally, there are three booster pump stations in the distribution system to increase system pressures in small areas of high elevation (North High, Kenwood, and Southwest).

The residual solids from the lime softening and coagulation/settling processes are handled at the dewatering facility. The residuals are thickened in large gravity settling tanks. The thickener supernatant is recycled back to the softening plant. The thickened underflow is sent through filter presses and the cake is hauled off site as beneficial agricultural liming material. The pressate is directed to seven lime residual lagoons where evaporation and freeze-thaw cycles dry remaining solids. The dried solids from the lagoons are also trucked off site. The overall treatment process generates 25,000 to 32,000 tons of dry solids per year. Decant from the lagoons is adjusted for pH, monitored for solids and discharged to the river at the Lagoon Overflow Treatment Plant through a State Discharge System/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit The total treatment capacity has been sufficient to meet the water demands of the City and its wholesale customers.

<!-- page 1158 -->
### Table 4 – Water Treatment Capacity and Treatment Processes

| Treatment Site ID (Plant Name or Well ID) | Year Constructed | Treatment Capacity (MGD) | Treatment Method | Treatment Type | Annual Amount of Residuals | Disposal Process for Residuals | Do You Reclaim Filter Backwash Water? |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Columbia Heights Filtration and Membrane Plant | 1913 / 2005 | 75 | Coagulation, Clarification, Disinfection, Membrane Filtration | Conventional Surface Water Treatment | 80 - 100 MGY | River discharge (NPDES/SDS MN0003247) | Yes |
| Fridley Filtration Plant | 1927 | 135 | Coagulation, Clarification, Disinfection, Granular media filtration | Conventional Surface Water Treatment | none | N/A | Yes |
| Fridley Softening Plant | 1940 | 135 | Chemical Addition, Coagulation Clarification | Lime Softening and Recarbonation | None (Sent to Dewatering or Lagoons) | Dewatering and Lagoons | N/A |
| Dewatering Plant (Residuals treatment) | 1973 / 2010 | Solids from 120 – 135 MGD treatment | Thickening, Filtration (filter press) | Dewatering | 40,000 tons dry solids | Farm application of Agricultural Liming Material | N/A |
| Lagoon Overflow Treatment Plant | 1995 | 1.2 | Chemical Addition | pH Adjustment | 20 – 40 MGY | River discharge (NPDES/SDS MN0003247) | N/A |
| TOTALS | NA | 135 | NA | NA | 100 – 140 MGY, 40,000 Tons Dry Solids | NA | NA |

<!-- page 1159 -->
### Table 5 – Storage Capacity (2015)

| Structure Name | Type of Storage Structure | Year Constructed | Primary Material | Storage Capacity (MG) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Columbia Heights Finished Water Reservoir | Ground Storage | 1913 | Concrete | 26.4 |
| Fridley Finished Water Reservoir | Ground Storage | 1927 | Concrete | 10.9 |
| Fridley Finished Water Reservoir | Ground Storage | 1952 | Concrete | 10.4 |
| Hilltop Finished Water Reservoir | Ground Storage | 1952 | Concrete | 16.8 |
| Hilltop Finished Water Reservoir | Ground Storage | 1954 | Concrete | 16.3 |
| Columbia Heights Finished Water Reservoir | Ground Storage | 1978 | Concrete | 9.8 |
| Hilltop Finished Water Reservoir | Ground Storage | 2001 | Concrete | 16.8 |
| Hilltop Finished Water Reservoir | Ground Storage | 2001 | Concrete | 16.8 |
| Total | NA | NA | NA | 124.2 |

### C. WATER SOURCES

The Mississippi River is the single source of supply for the potable water system owned and operated by WTDS. Two intake structures are located adjacent to the river at the Fridley treatment facility. The main intakes are at Pump Station No. 5, which has 10 pumps. Four of the pumps have a capacity rated at 30 Million Gallons per Day (MGD), an additional four pumps have a capacity rated at 20 MGD, and two pumps with capacities of 19 MGD and 6 MGD. The total capacity is 219 MGD and the firm capacity[^p1159-1] is 189 MGD.

WTDS does not have an interconnection in-place that can supply the requisite volume of water to meet daily demands. In addition, WTDS does not own or operate drinking water supply wells.

[^p1159-1]: is 189 MGD.

<!-- page 1160 -->
**Conjunctive Use of Surface and Ground Waters**

In 1987, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Minneapolis initiated a study to evaluate groundwater in the region as a potential alternate or supplemental source to the Mississippi River. The study examined the effects of groundwater withdrawals on the local aquifer and the Mississippi River near the plant. The Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4165 (1990) describes the construction, calibration and application of a numerical groundwater flow model that simulates the flow dynamics of the water bearing formations within the study area including the St. Peter and Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer. The study suggests that contaminated groundwater could migrate towards certain depressions in the potentiometric surfaces of the St. Peter and ultimately the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer. The presence of the bedrock valley within the region and discontinuities in the upper-drift confining unit create the potential for the downward movement of contaminants from the surficial sands and gravel deposits to the underlying aquifers. The risk of contamination has drawn concern by WTDS staff for potentially using groundwater in close proximity of the Fridley facility to augment or intermittently replace the current source water.

WTDS commissioned a study in 2013 to better understand the viability and cost of a groundwater supply strategy that could meet the average daily demand of the City on an intermittent basis and/or augment the current surface water supply source. The aspects of the study were specific to the following:

- Well-field Location, Scale and Yield Potential
- Groundwater Quality and Contaminant Migration
- Treatment
- Water Infrastructure (e.g. pipeline improvements)

The results of the study were outlined in the August 9, 2013 report prepared by Barr Engineering (Barr). The report brought forth a total of seven conceptual design alternatives which were identified by Barr and WTDS staff as those that meet the aforementioned objectives, and integrate well with current plant operations and WTDS infrastructure. WTDS staff has discussed the specifics of the report internally, but have elected not to pursue subsequent studies and engineering support services at this time (2016). Project prioritization and condition assessment program work has resulted to in the assignment of a "low" priority ranking for the groundwater supply initiative. Certain strategic projects have outweighed the tangential initiative for a groundwater water supply, groundwater treatment and distribution system.

**Vulnerability Assessment**

The findings and conclusions of the 2016 Vulnerability Assessment (VA) qualify the source water (Mississippi River) to be "low" in the risk ranking scheme which essentially lessens the need for source water mitigation measures or source water contingency action strategies to supplement or replace the Mississippi River as the source of the potable water system. The VA evaluated risk to the source water relative to both contamination and drought while accounting for the mitigation measures and contingency actions already in place. The evaluation indicated that a source water contamination or drought event would either have very low consequences or is very unlikely to occur. It was concluded that additional investment in source water mitigation measures or contingency action strategies to supplement or replace the source would have little to no risk reduction benefits. Although WTDS staff will continue to have groundwater related conversations, it is not likely that further development of the groundwater supply concepts will move forward within the next few years

<!-- page 1161 -->
### Well-Fields

Within the City of Minneapolis boundaries, there are no high-capacity wells that could be hooked up to the City’s water supply system in the event of a water emergency. Even if such wells existed, the connection of high pressure, untreated, and un-softened water into watermains would likely cause numerous water quality and pressure-related problems.

The Joint Water Commission (JWC), a wholesale customer to the east of Minneapolis comprised of Crystal, Golden Valley and New Hope conducted a groundwater source assessment in 2003. This study concluded that within the JWC service area, up to 21 MGD of groundwater could be pumped from the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer. As of the date of this WSP, it is understood that the JWC has commissioned at least one water supply well contingency supply purposes.

#### Table 6 – Water Sources and Status

| Resource Type (Groundwater, Surface water, Interconnection) | Resource Name | MN Unique Well # or Intake ID | Year Installed | Capacity (MGD) | Well Depth (Feet) | Status of Normal and Emergency Operations (active, inactive, emergency only, retail/wholesale interconnection)) | Does this Source have a Dedicated Emergency Power Source? (Yes or No) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Surface Water | Mississippi River | Pump Station 5 | 1927 | 219 | N/A | Active | Yes |

### Limits on Emergency Interconnections

An 12 inch interconnection was constructed opportunistically with Saint Paul Regional Water Services in 2010 with the Light Rail Construction project as a contingency should water loss be experienced by Minneapolis and St. Paul customers within the immediate service area. The connection was not designed nor was it intended to service as viable alternative supply to the City of Minneapolis or the City of St. Paul in the event of a water shortage.

## D. FUTURE DEMAND PROJECTIONS

### Water Use Trends

The population within the City of Minneapolis peaked in the 1950’s and experienced large losses from 1950 to 1980. From 1980 to 1990, the population of Minneapolis increased from 368,383 to 382,618, or 3.9% as taken from the US Census Bureau. Population projections through 2040 were provided by the Metropolitan Council. Figure 1 illustrates the population trend observed for the past twenty years as well as that projected by Metropolitan Council.

<!-- page 1162 -->
Figure 1 – Population Trends

<<FIGURE>>

While population has increased over the past 10 years the use of potable water has gone down. WTDS believes that this trend is attributable to an increase in awareness of water conservation by the consumer base as well as an increase in use of water conservation fixtures and appliances and/or retrofitting of these devices within current homes and businesses. Climate conditions are also of significant concern with respect to the amount of water consumed throughout the year. Warmer and dry years result in an increase in use and increased maximum day demands. Inversely, growing seasons that are witness to more wet-weather events yield significantly less water used.

Table 7 (below) was amended to provide a more accurate forecast of the population served and the corresponding water consumption for the City of Minneapolis and the wholesale customers through the year 2040. Population projection data was taken from Metropolitan Council’s - Thrive MSP 2040 (July 2015) population projections. These figures were updated in April 2019 in concert with forecasts outlined within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This Plan Amendment reflects these changes.

Estimates of Gallons per Capita Day (GPCD) and Maximum Day (MD) were assigned based on historical records. A 10% reduction was applied to the Projected Total GPCD, Projected Average Daily Demand, and Projected Maximum Daily Demand for years 2025, 2030, and 2040 in recognition of the observed decline in water consumption.

<!-- page 1163 -->
Table 7 – Project Annual Water Demand

| Year | Projected Total Population (Minneapolis) | Projected Population Served (Golden Valley)[^p1163-1] | Projected Population Served (Crystal)[^p1163-1] | Projected Population Served (New Hope)[^p1163-1] | Projected Population Served (Edina)[^1,2] | Projected Population Served (Bloomington)[^1,3] | Projected Population Served (Hilltop)[^p1163-1] | Projected Population Served (Columbia Heights)[^p1163-1] | Total Projected Population Served | Projected Total Per Capita Water Demand (GPCD) | Projected Average Daily Demand (MGD) | Projected Maximum Daily Demand (MGD)[^p1163-4] | Annual Water Demand (BG) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 2016 | 422564 | 20,871 | 22,568 | 20,923 | 1955 | 19850 | 422 | 8224 | 517377 | 104 | 53.81 | 102 | 19.64 |
| 2017 | 425621 | 21,970 | 22,604 | 20,993 | 1979 | 19926 | 429 | 8274 | 521796 | 104 | 54.27 | 102 | 19.81 |
| 2018 | 428636 | 22,850 | 22,640 | 21,063 | 2005 | 20002 | 435 | 8323 | 525954 | 104 | 54.70 | 102 | 19.97 |
| 2019 | 431610 | 23,780 | 22,676 | 21,133 | 2033 | 20079 | 441 | 8371 | 530123 | 104 | 55.13 | 102 | 20.12 |
| 2020 | 436000 | 24,800 | 22,700 | 21,100 | 2061 | 20157 | 447 | 8419 | 535684 | 104 | 55.71 | 102 | 20.33 |
| 2021 | 437433 | 24,900 | 23,030 | 21,273 | 2092 | 20235 | 454 | 8467 | 537884 | 100 | 53.79 | 102 | 19.63 |
| 2022 | 440283 | 25,000 | 23,030 | 21,343 | 2124 | 20315 | 459 | 8515 | 541069 | 100 | 54.11 | 102 | 19.75 |
| 2023 | 443091 | 25,100 | 23,090 | 21,413 | 2157 | 20395 | 465 | 8562 | 544273 | 100 | 54.43 | 102 | 19.87 |
| 2024 | 445858 | 25,200 | 23,120 | 21,483 | 2192 | 20476 | 471 | 8609 | 547409 | 100 | 54.74 | 102 | 19.98 |
| 2025 | 448583 | 25,300 | 23,150 | 21,553 | 2228 | 20558 | 477 | 8655 | 550504 | 100 | 55.05 | 102 | 20.09 |
| 2030 | 460000 | 25,800 | 23,200 | 22,000 | 2433 | 20980 | 503 | 8882 | 563798 | 95 | 53.56 | 102 | 19.55 |
| 2040 | 485000 | 26,700 | 23,800 | 23,100 | 2954 | 21887 | 549 | 9307 | 593297 | 95 | 56.36 | 102 | 20.57 |

**MG** – Million Gallons **MGD** – Million Gallons per Day **GPCD** – Gallons per Capita Day **BG** – Billion Gallons

[^p1163-1]: = Projection of Population Served by Water Treatment and Distribution Services for Wholesale Customer
[^p1163-2]: = Morningside Neighborhood
[^p1163-3]: = Based on % of Total Annual Water used/metered by MPLS (24% of the Total Annual Water Budget is utilized by the City of Bloomington)
[^p1163-4]: = Based on Average Maximum Daily Demand (2006 – 2016)

<!-- page 1164 -->
### PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS (TABLE 7 – AVERAGE DAILY AND MAXIMUM DAILY)

The Projected Water Demand metrics outlined above between the years of 2016 through 2026 are based on a 5-year running average of the actual water-use data made record of. The 5-year average for Total Per Capita, Average Daily, Maximum Daily, and Annual water demand was determined to be the best method to representing the future, or projected water-use data for WTDS for the next cycle and through 2040. Using the 5-year running average is also a conservative approach due to the “declining” trend observed in Table 2. Water-use projections assigned to years 2030 and 2040 account for the observed “decline” by an estimated 8 - 10% of the presently recorded values. The trend-lines for the water-use categories illustrated in Figure 5 further illustrate this assumption.

### E. RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY

The sole source of supply for WTDS is the Mississippi River. The river intakes are located in the pool created by the Upper St. Anthony Falls (USAF) Dam. The main intakes are approximately five (5) miles upstream from the USAF Dam. The flow characteristics of the river have been thoroughly documented in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' St. Paul District's Reports. WTDS has an estimated maximum 20-day supply of water, if the alternate intakes at Pump Station No. 4 could be used to withdraw from the pool of the USAF Dam.

The United States Geological Survey has maintained a river monitoring station near Anoka since 1931 (USGS Site ID 5288500). This station is downstream of the Coon Rapids Dam at approximate River Mile 865, about 6.5 miles upstream of the Minneapolis intakes. Figure 2 presents the average annual mean flow at that gage between the years 1956 through 2015. The average day demand of 61 MGD is equivalent to roughly 94 cubic feet per second (cfs) while a peak day demand of around 120 MGD is equivalent to 186 cfs.

#### Figure 2 – USGS River Gage 5288500 (Mississippi River at Anoka)

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1165 -->
Legislation enacted in 1990 mandated the DNR to prepare a drought plan to provide a framework for preparing and responding to droughts and to minimize conflicts and negative impacts on Minnesota's natural resources and economy. Through this legislation the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Drought Plan (Plan) was developed. The Plan provides for response actions in a staged approach related to river elevations and respective flows. The plan was revised in April 2009.

The Plan identifies unique Mississippi River flows - measured by the USGS gage near Anoka - as triggers, or thresholds, for implementing emergency response actions for drought conditions. If the average daily flow at the USGS gage near Anoka is at or below 2000 cfs for five consecutive days a Drought Warning condition is declared.

Figure 3 illustrates the significant time periods for the 5th percentile and 10th percentile for the Mississippi River. The information used to generate the table was taken from the records maintained by USGS for River Gage Station 05288500. Information was available through Nov. 2015. These time periods reflect the percentile data drop below the 2000 cfs trigger for five or more days. It may be interpreted that once every 20 years (5th percentile), the Drought Warning condition would be triggered at some time between January 17th and March 3rd or between July 27th and September 2nd. Further, at a frequency of once every 10 years (10th percentile), the Drought Warning condition would be triggered at some time between August 5th and August 25th. However, the 10th percentile data never drops below the Restrictive Phase trigger of 2000 cfs. The 5th percentile value only drops below the Restrictive Phase trigger for six days between August 21st and 26th. Thus, the Mississippi River has ample flow to sustain WTDS’s demands with minimal probability of reaching levels triggering drought response actions.

<!-- page 1166 -->
Figure 3 – Drought Response

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 1167 -->
As discussed in Section 1.0, subp. C, the VA evaluated risk to the source water relative to both contamination and drought while accounting for the mitigation measures and contingency actions already in place. The evaluation indicated that a source water contamination or drought event would either have "low" consequences or is "very unlikely" to occur. It was concluded that additional investment in source water mitigation measures or contingency action strategies to supplement or replace the source would have little to no risk reduction benefits.

However, the occurrence of a drought scenario, where regulatory bodies (e.g. DNR) may limit the amount of water WTDS could withdraw from the Mississippi River, would not reduce WTDS’ ability to meet its water supply objectives. Drought scenarios which result in an insufficient volume of water in the river which would limit WTDS’ ability to withdraw water is so unlikely that the relative risk associated with that scenario is "low" while any mitigation measures available or implementable would only partially mitigate the risk.

### Table 8 – Information about Source Water Quality Monitoring

| MN Unique Well # or Surface Water ID | Type of monitoring point | Monitoring program | Frequency of monitoring | Monitoring Method |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Mississippi River | Source Water Intake | Routine MDH sampling<br><br>Routine Water Utility Sampling | continuous<br><br>hourly<br><br>daily<br><br>monthly<br><br>quarterly<br><br>annually | SCADA<br><br>Grab Sampling |

### F. WATER LEVEL DATA

Water level monitoring is accomplished through automated methods by a gaging station located at Pump Station No. 5. River elevations are collected in real-time throughout the year and communicated to the SCADA system for monitoring and record keeping. WTDS staff downloads and records this information. This information is also supplied to the National Weather Service Agency and United Stated Geological Society. Figure 4 illustrates the water level data at the gaging station for the past 10 years. Elevation is per the City of Minneapolis datum.

<!-- page 1168 -->
### Figure 4 – Water Level Data

<<FIGURE>>

A sample of the data used to generate Figure 4 is provided below as Table 9 – Water Level Monitoring. The gaging station, SCADA system, and data downloads serve as the water level monitoring plan employed by WTDS. A copy of the raw data is provided in Appendix 2 Water Level Monitoring Plan.

<!-- page 1169 -->
### Table 9 – Water Level Data

| Gage Station ID | Date | Location | Source Water | River Elevation (ft) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | 1-Apr-16 | | | 90.18 |
| | 2-Apr-16 | | | 90.04 |
| | 3-Apr-16 | | | 90.20 |
| | 4-Apr-16 | | | 90.02 |
| | 5-Apr-16 | | | 90.16 |
| 3371 | 6-Apr-16 | PS05 | Mississippi River | 90.14 |
| | 7-Apr-16 | | | 90.18 |
| | 8-Apr-16 | | | 90.05 |
| | 9-Apr-16 | | | 89.68 |
| | 10-Apr-16 | | | 89.50 |

### Table 10 – Natural Resource Impacts

| Resource Type | Resource Name | Risk | Risk Assessed Through | Describe Resource Protection Threshold | Mitigation Measure or Management Plan | Describe How Changes to Thresholds are Monitored |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| River | Mississippi River | Flow Volume and River Elevation | Monitoring | Flow Volumes and Elevations | Low River Level Pumping/Storage Strategies | SCADA Systems |
| River | Mississippi River | Groundwater Pumping | Monitoring | Flow Volumes and Elevations | Low River Level Pumping/Storage Strategies | SCADA Systems |
| River | Mississippi River | Contamination | Monitoring | Contaminated Surface Water | Shut-Down Intakes Deploy contaminant control measures | SCADA Water Quality Testing |

<!-- page 1170 -->
There are no “known” or “documented” natural resources or any “high value” ecological resources that are or would be subject to impairment by the raw water intakes operated by WTDS.  The 2015 Master Water Supply Plan prepared by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) was also reviewed in an attempt to identify any known or documented natural resources or system vulnerabilities that should be taken into consideration.  The results of this plan review identified the Mississippi River itself as the only natural resource of significance.

WTDS maintains that the raw water withdrawals from the river, in addition to the return or discharge of dewatering process water back to the river is not harmful to this resource.  The raw water withdrawal volumes are sub-fractional compared to the total flow volume available in the river throughout the year.  The flow volume and respective elevation of the river is monitored throughout the year by WTDS.  These values are compared with certain benchmarks that were established previously and recorded historically as “critical flows” that are necessary to support the potable water supply system.  This information along with the requisite operational protocols is captured with the Emergency Water Supply Plan.

The discharge of dewatering process water is closely monitored for pH and total suspended solids in order to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions imposed by the MPCA.

### Table 11 – Source Water Protection Plan

| Plan Type | Status | Date Adopted | Date for Update |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Source Water Protection Plan | Completed | March 2009 | March 2019 |

The Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP) was prepared in recognition of the 1996 Amendment to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act which requires the delegated state agency to complete a Source Water Assessment (SWA) of a public water system.  The SWA is intended to inform the users of a public water supply system of the source of their drinking water, the susceptibility of the source water to contamination, potential contaminants of concern to the source water intakes and, to the extent practical, the sources of potential contaminants of concern.

The SWA for the City of Minneapolis was prepared collaboratively with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) through a Clean Water Partnership Grant issued by the MPCA.  This document was utilized for the development of the current SWPP.  The next plan update is scheduled for March 2019.

### G. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)

Water utility infrastructure that is owned and operated by WTDS including water treatment plants, pumping facilities, and distribution piping are 60 to 150 years old.  Various projects are in the planning, design, and implementation phases in order to sustain, as well as improve, system operations.  The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is the road map by which projects are identified, funded, and implemented.  A copy of the CIP is provided in Appendix 4 – Capital Improvement Plan.  Table 12 provides a brief summary of projects that are undertaken throughout the year and those being considered for implementation within the next 20 years.

<!-- page 1171 -->
### Table 12 – Adequacy of Water Supply System

| System Component | Planned action | Anticipated Construction Year | Notes |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Intakes | Repair/Replacement:<br><br>Lowering of suction wells on raw water intake pumps | 2020 | Tentative: conceptual plan only as of 2016. |
| Water Storage Facilities | No action planned - adequate | | |
| Water Treatment Facilities<br><ul><li>Ongoing rehabilitation and upgrades at all plants and pump stations.</li><li>Fridley Filter Rehabilitation</li><li>Recarbonation system</li></ul> | Repair/Replacement | <ul><li>Annually,</li><li>2016 – 2020,</li><li>2016 – 2018</li></ul> | |
| Distribution Systems (pipes, valves, etc.) | Repair/Replacement<br><br>Expansion/Addition<br><br>Cleaning and Lining<br><br>Structural Lining | Annually | |
| Pressure Zones | No action planned - adequate | | |
| Well-Field | Groundwater Augmentation | TBD | Concept Level Planning |

### Table 13 – Proposed Future Installations/Sources

For the purpose of this report, WTDS has identified the following proposed/future source water alternatives.

| Source | Installation Location (approximate) | Resource Name | Proposed Pumping Capacity (gpm) | Planned Installation Year | Planned Partnerships |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Groundwater | Fridley<br>Minneapolis | TBD | TBD | TBD | None |
| Interconnection | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | St. Paul Regional Water |

These source water strategies are intended to serve as a supplement to the existing Mississippi River source water supply. Groundwater, through well-field appropriations, and treated water through an interconnection with the City of St. Paul are to augment current operations and/or be utilized for emergency purposes. Both strategies are conceptual in nature and have not undergone the requisite engineering and planning as of the date of this WSP.

<!-- page 1172 -->
**Water Source Alternatives**

Do you anticipate the need for alternative water sources in the next 10 years?

__ Yes _X_ No

### Table 14 – Alternative Water Sources

| Alternative Source Considered | Source and/or Installation Location (approximate) | Estimated Amount of Future Demand (%) | Timeframe to Implement (YYYY) | Potential Partners | Benefits | Challenges |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Groundwater | Minneapolis<br><br>Fridley | TBD | TBD | TBD | Augment/<br><br>Emergency Response | Cost Groundwater Quality |
| Interconnection to another supplier | City of St. Paul | TBD | TBD | St. Paul | Emergency Response | Cost Water Chemistry Pressure |

As discussed above, WTDS does not anticipate the need for an alternative water source to sustain current and projected demands on the water system. The strategies listed in Table 14 are conceptual source alternatives to augment the current surface water supply and/or to provide an intermittent emergency supply should the primary source be temporarily unavailable. It is also unknown at this point as to the % or volume of water needed from an alternative source to sustain the demand. These fields are listed as To Be Determined (TBD)

<!-- page 1173 -->
# 2.0 Emergency Preparedness Procedures

The emergency preparedness procedures outlined in this plan are intended to comply with the contingency plan provisions required by MDH in the SWPP plan. Water emergencies can occur as a result of vandalism, sabotage, accidental contamination, mechanical problems, power failings, drought, flooding, and other natural disasters. The purpose of emergency planning is to develop emergency response procedures and to identify actions needed to improve emergency preparedness.

In the case of a municipality, these procedures should be in support of, as well as a component of, an all-hazard emergency operations plan referred to herein as the Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Municipalities that already have written procedures dealing with water emergencies should review the following information and update existing procedures to address these water supply protection measures.

### A. FEDERAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN

Section 1433(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, (Public Law 107-188, Title IV- Drinking Water Security and Safety) requires community water suppliers serving over 3,300 people to prepare an ERP.

**Do you have a federal emergency response plan?** √ Yes ☐ No

**If yes, what was the date it was certified?** September 26, 2003

#### Table 15 – Emergency Preparedness Plan Contact Information

| Emergency Response Plan | Contact Person | Contact Number |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Emergency Response Lead | Annika Bankston | 612-661-4975 |
| | Superintendent – Water Plant Operations | 612-581-0416 (cell) |
| Alternate Emergency Response Lead | George Kraynick | 612-661-4904 or |
| | Supervisor | 612-916-0546 (cell) |
| Emergency Response Plan Certification Date | \multicolumn{2}{c|}{February 2017} |

### B. OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN

**Do you have a written operational contingency plan?** √ Yes ☐ No

WTDS operates a water treatment plant maintenance facility as well as a distribution services maintenance division in support of water treatment operations and water distribution. Each facility is fully staffed with the requisite skilled laborers and resources necessary to respond to operational issues (i.e. electrical, mechanical, process) or failures that require immediate attention.

The water treatment plant maintenance shop continuously services, repairs, and replaces old equipment and instrumentation to ensure proper operation. This same group also handles any/all facilities and building maintenance required to sustain plant operations. The distribution services division administers a preventive maintenance program which includes exercising valves, flushing hydrants, performing leak detection investigations,

<!-- page 1174 -->
and cleaning and lining watermain to sustain water distribution to the local market and whole sale customers. Both facilities maintain and keep inventory of the tools and supplies necessary for performance of any/all response action work needed. In addition to the above, a fully staffed meter shop maintains, repairs, and/or replaces – as determined necessary – the water meters within the City of Minneapolis.

Due largely to the on-going and sometimes overwhelming effort of maintaining water treatment and distribution services systems and infrastructure, WTDS retains the services of certain outside contractors and suppliers. These firms are utilized for support to the maintenance service staff on a variety of construction projects with varying degrees of skills and complexities. WTDS has been able to develop strong working relationships with these firms for the purposes of immediate response action work. These contractors are called-upon in emergency situations to supplement WTDS forces in dealing with large scale issues or complex problems. A list of the firms is maintained at each of the respective maintenance facilities.

### C. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES

Water suppliers must meet the requirements of MN Rules 4720.5280. Accordingly, the DNR requires public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people to submit Emergency and Conservation Plans. Water emergency and conservation plans that have been approved by the DNR, under provisions of Minnesota Statute 186 and Minnesota Rules, part 6115.0770, will be considered equivalent to an approved SWPP contingency plan.

The ERP serves as an operational document for WTDS for response action work and water appropriation and delivery contingencies. The document was prepared in accordance with the provisions of MN Rule 4720.5280. WTDS is in the process of updating this document with the expectation to have it certified and ready for council adoption by February 2017.

**Emergency Telephone List**

The Emergency Telephone List is provided in Appendix 5. The list will be reviewed and updated annually to reflect any/all staff changes or re-assignments of responsibilities.

**Current Water Sources and Service Area**

Do records and maps exist? √ Yes ☐ No

WTDS maintains a geographic information system (GIS) database that encompasses the entire water utility serving Minneapolis and the points of service of the aforementioned wholesale customers. The GIS database and system tools are accessible both at the water treatment facility and distribution services offices as well as remotely through approved mobile devices. In addition to the GIS database, water utility as-built documents and intersection cards are maintained within the archives of the Fridley facility and distribution services offices respectively. The drawings help to facilitate project work within the City or as needed to supplement design and development work on engineering projects.

The mapping tools within the GIS system provide quick and easy access to the layout and make-up of the distribution system. These tools are used on a daily basis for operation and maintenance activities as well as for planning and design of water improvements projects. Intersection cards are also available for viewing through the mapping tool.

<!-- page 1175 -->
**Can staff access records and maps from a central secured location in the event of an emergency?**

√ Yes ☐ No

As discussed above, water utility staff has the ability to access all the necessary information remotely through approved mobile devices or through designated GIS work stations. Field crews are now equipped with mobile devices that allow fast and easy access to the GIS database and mapping tools. The GIS system is maintained by trained professionals who update the database on a daily basis so the information is accurate and in real-time when crews attempt to access the files for work related purposes.

**Does the appropriate staff know where the materials are located?**

√ Yes ☐ No

Training is provided by WTDS on the use of the mobile devices and functionality of the GIS system for accessing information and interpreting the data for work related activities. Reproductions of the water utility as-builts are also an option, but are seldom used.

### D. PROCEDURE FOR AUGMENTING WATER SUPPLIES

#### Table 16 – Interconnections with other water supply systems to supply water in an emergency

| Other Water Supply System Owner | Capacity (GPM & MGD) | Note Any Limitations On Use | List of services, equipment, supplies available to respond |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CITY OF ST.PAUL | 2000 GPM | NONE | AS NEEDED |

GPM – Gallons per minute MGD – million gallons per day

As commented on previously, the interconnection with the City of St. Paul is not viewed or managed by WTDS as an alternative source of water for the purpose of emergency supply or augmentation. This infrastructure was added opportunistically with the light rail transit project for local fire suppression and/or as a contingency water supply for the immediate area.

#### Table 17 – Utilizing surface water as an alternative source

The Mississippi River is the primary source water for the City of Minneapolis’ potable water supply system.

| Surface Water Source Name | Capacity | Treatment Needs | Note Any Limitations On Use |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Mississippi River | See Section 1.B | See Section 1.B | None |

<!-- page 1176 -->
### E. ALLOCATION AND DEMAND REDUCTION PROCEDURES

Demand reduction procedures are prudent to address the sudden loss of water due to line breaks, power failures, sabotage, etc. or a gradual decrease in water supply. During periods of limited water supply public water suppliers are required to allocate water based on the priorities established in Minnesota Statutes 103G.261 listed below.

**Water Use Priorities (Minnesota Statutes 103G.261)**

**First Priority.** Domestic water supply, excluding industrial and commercial uses of municipal water supply, and use for power production that meets contingency requirements.

*NOTE: Domestic use is defined (MN Rules 6115.0630, Subp. 9), as use for general household purposes for human needs such as cooking, cleaning, drinking, washing, and waste disposal, and uses for on-farm livestock watering excluding commercial livestock operations which use more than 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year.*

**Second Priority.** Water uses involving consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day.

**Third Priority.** Agricultural irrigation and processing of agricultural products.

**Fourth Priority.** Power production in excess of the use provided for in the contingency plan under first priority.

**Fifth Priority.** Uses, other than agricultural irrigation, processing of agricultural products, and power production.

**Sixth Priority.** Non-essential uses. These uses are defined by Minnesota Statutes 103G.291 as lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation, and other non-essential uses.

The values for Average Daily Demand provided in Table 18 were derived from the usage data recorded for the 2015 reporting year. The totals for the categories listed were observed to be within 4% of the 5-year average in each category indicating that 2015 was a reasonably representative year for water consumption. Prioritization of the respective categories was based on the above Water Use Priorities statute. The Short-Term Emergency Demand Reduction Potential values are based on the Average Daily Demand (summer) less the base-line measurement (winter).

<!-- page 1177 -->
### Table 18 – Water Use Priorities

| Customer Category | Allocation Priority | Average Daily Demand (MGD) | Short-Term Emergency Demand Reduction Potential (MGD) |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Residential | 1A | 20.30 | 2.7 |
| Institutional (Hospitals, Nursing Homes) | 1B |  |  |
| Industrial | 2 | 7.10 | 0.10 |
| Commercial | 3 | 7.10 | 1.40 |
| Wholesale | 4 | 10.80 | 8.10 |
| Irrigation | 5 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
| Un-metered/Non Revenue (16.50% of Avg. Daily Demand) |  | 8.90 |  |
| TOTAL |  | 54.22 | 12.30 |

MGD – Million Gallons per Day

### Table 19 – Emergency Demand Reduction Conditions - Triggers and Actions

| | Trigger(s) | Action(s) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Stage 1 (Mild)** | Informed by State as being in a “Drought Watch” phase in accordance with the Statewide Drought Plan. | Voluntary conservation actions requested of users which may include reducing or eliminating sprinkling, or to reduce residential use (minimize bath use, reduce shower length, wash only full loads of clothes and dishes, etc.) |
| **Stage 2 (Moderate)** | Informed by State as being in a “Drought Warning” phase in accordance with the Statewide Drought Plan.<br><br>When it is anticipated that demand will exceed 100% of available *firm* treatment capacity. | Odd-even watering ban. (In addition to Stage 1 actions). |
| **Stage 3 (Severe)** | Informed by State as being in a “Restrictive” phase in accordance with the Statewide Drought Plan.<br><br>When it is anticipated that demand will exceed 100% of *actual* available treatment capacity and storage reserves. | Total sprinkling ban, car-washing prohibited. Residential users encouraged to use water for only essential domestic purposes (drinking, cooking, basic sanitation). |
| **Critical Water Deficiency (M.S. 103G.291)** | Informed by State as being in an “Emergency” phase in accordance with the Statewide Drought Plan.<br><br>Executive Order by Governor.<br><br>Severe contamination event. | Eliminate 6<sup>th</sup> priority use and constrain 2nd through 5<sup>th</sup> priority water allocation. |

*Note: The potential for water availability problems during the onset of a drought are almost impossible to predict. Significant increases in demand should be balanced with preventative measures to conserve supplies in the event of prolonged drought conditions.*

<!-- page 1178 -->
The triggers outlined in Table 19 are those operational strategies that are employed by WTDS to reduce water demand during seasonally high usage or unscheduled interruptions. Table 19 describes the actions associated with each trigger, dependent upon the severity of a given emergency situation.

**Notification Procedures**

### Table 20 – Plan to Inform Customers Regarding Conservation Requests, Water Use Restrictions, and Suspensions

| Notification Trigger(s) | Methods | Update Frequency | Partners |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Short-term demand reduction declared (< 1 year) | <ul><li>Website</li><li>Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook)</li><li>City News Letter</li><li>Direct customer mailing</li><li>Meeting with large water users (> 10% of total city use)</li></ul> | <ul><li>Daily</li><li>Weekly</li><li>Monthly</li><li>Annually</li></ul> | None |
| Long-term Ongoing demand reduction declared | <ul><li>Website</li><li>Email list serve</li><li>Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook)</li><li>Direct customer mailing</li><li>Press release (TV, radio, newspaper)</li><li>Meeting with large water users (> 10% of total city use)</li></ul> | <ul><li>Daily</li><li>Weekly</li><li>Monthly</li><li>Annually</li></ul> | None |
| Governor’s Critical water deficiency declared | <ul><li>Website</li><li>Email list serve</li><li>Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook)</li><li>Direct customer mailing</li><li>Press release (TV, radio, newspaper)</li><li>Meeting with large water users (> 10% of total city use)</li></ul> | <ul><li>Daily</li><li>Weekly</li><li>Monthly</li><li>Annually</li></ul> | None |

## F. ENFORCEMENT

Prior to a water emergency, municipal water suppliers must adopt regulations that restrict water use and outline the enforcement response plan. The enforcement response plan must outline how conditions will be monitored to know when enforcement actions are triggered, what enforcement tools will be used, who will be responsible for enforcement, and what timelines any/all corrective actions will be implemented.

Affected operations, communications, and enforcement staff must then be trained to rapidly implement those provisions during emergency conditions. A copy of the Municipal Critical Water Deficiency Ordinance is provided in Appendix 7.

<!-- page 1179 -->
The City of Minneapolis has ordinances in place that empower the Director of WTDS or the City Engineer to address critical water deficiencies and provide for penalties for non-compliance. Ordinance 509.1480 authorizes

| Public Water Supply Appropriation During Deficiency. |
| :--- |
| **Minnesota Statutes 103G.291, Subdivision 1.** |
| Declaration and conservation. |
| (a) If the governor determines and declares by executive order that there is a critical water deficiency, public water supply authorities appropriating water must adopt and enforce water conservation restrictions within their jurisdiction that are consistent with rules adopted by the commissioner. |
| (b) The restrictions must limit lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation, and other nonessential uses, and have appropriate penalties for failure to comply with the restrictions. |

the City Engineer or the appointed representative of the City Engineer the right to declare an emergency. The following are taken from the City Code of Ordinances:

**509.960. Shut-off for public interest, misuse, waste or violation.** Any violation of chapter 509 may cause water to be shut off. Water may also be shut off if the director of the waterworks determines that the use, misuse or waste of water adversely affects the health, safety or welfare of the public. No one shall turn water on or off without authority from the city. Whenever water is found on without authority, it may be immediately turned off without further notice. (98-Or-134, § 1, 11-13-98)

**509.1470. Water use limited during emergency period.** No person shall draw or use water from the city water mains or city waterworks system other than as permitted by the declaration of emergency during any period of emergency caused by shortage of water supply or lowering of water pressure in the water mains of the city. (77-Or-070, § 1, 4-7-77; 98-Or-135, § 38, 11-13-98)

**509.1480. Declaration of emergency.** The city engineer or the appointed representative of the city engineer shall declare the existence of such an emergency as and when it may become necessary, shall determine the period of such an emergency and the termination thereof, shall decide the daily hours of restriction, the method of restriction, and shall decide upon the proper notification to customers of such restrictions. (77-Or-070, § 2, 4-7-77; Pet. No. 251069, § 26, 12-15-89; 98-Or-135, § 39, 11-13-98)

**509.1490. Administrative fee.** For a first violation of the declaration of emergency, the occupant of the premises or the owner thereof will receive a warning of the offense. Subsequent violations of the declaration of emergency will result in a turnoff of the water supply to the premises. Written notice posted on the premises at the time of the violation will be considered sufficient notice prior to turnoff of the water supply. No water supply which has been turned off because of a violation of this article shall be turned on until twenty-five dollars ($25.00) has been paid to the Minneapolis waterworks division, together with the regular charge for turning off and on water service. The city engineer may, in the event of demonstrated economic hardship, waive a

<!-- page 1180 -->
portion of the twenty-five dollar ($25.00) administrative fee, but not exceeding fifteen dollars
($15.00). The violation may also be subject to the penalties in Chapter 1 of this Code. (77-Or-070,
§ 3, 4-7-77; 98-Or-135, § 40, 11-13-98)

In the event emergency repairs are necessary, the City also has authority to shut off water:

**509.110. City not liable for water shortage; authority to shut off.** The city shall not be liable for
any deficiency or failure in the supply of water to consumers, whether occasioned by shutting
the water off for the purpose of making repairs or connections, or for any other cause whatever.
In case of fire or alarm of fire, or in making repairs, or constructing new works, the
superintendent of the waterworks may shut off the water at any time and keep it shut off so long
as the superintendent shall deem necessary. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 600.100; Pet. No. 251069,
§ 11, 12-15-89)

**Does the city have a critical water deficiency restriction/official control in place that includes provisions to
restrict water use and enforce the restrictions? (This restriction may be an ordinance, rule, regulation, policy
under a council directive, or other official control)** √ Yes ☐ No

Language from the ordinance is provided herein.

**Irrespective of whether a critical water deficiency control is in place, does the public water supply utility, city
manager, mayor, or emergency manager have standing authority to implement water restrictions?** √ Yes ☐ No

**If yes, cite the regulatory authority reference:**

Director of WTDS, City Engineer, or representative(s) thereof.

<!-- page 1181 -->
# 3.0 Water Conservation Plan

Minnesotans have historically benefited from the state’s abundant water supplies, reducing the need for conservation. There are however, limits to the available supplies of water and increasing threats to the quality of our drinking water. Causes of water supply limitation may include: population increases, economic trends, uneven statewide availability of groundwater, climatic changes, and degraded water quality. Examples of threats to drinking water quality include: the presence of contaminant plumes from past land use activities, exceedances of water quality standards from natural and human sources, contaminants of emerging concern, and increasing pollutant trends from nonpoint sources.

There are many incentives for conserving water; conservation:

*   reduces the potential for pumping-induced transfer of contaminants into the deeper aquifers, which can add treatment costs
*   reduces the need for capital projects to expand system capacity
*   reduces the likelihood of water use conflicts, like well interference, aquatic habitat loss, and declining lake levels
*   conserves energy, because less energy is needed to extract, treat and distribute water (and less energy production also conserves water since water is use to produce energy)
*   maintains water supplies that can then be available during times of drought

It is therefore imperative that water suppliers implement water conservation plans. The first step in water conservation is identifying opportunities for behavioral or engineering changes that could be made to reduce water use by conducting a thorough analysis of:

*   Water use by customer
*   Extraction, treatment, distribution and irrigation system efficiencies
*   Industrial processing system efficiencies
*   Regulatory and barriers to conservation
*   Cultural barriers to conservation
*   Water reuse opportunities

Once accurate data is compiled, water suppliers can set achievable goals for reducing water use. A successful water conservation plan follows a logical sequence of events. The plan should address both conservation on the supply side (leak detection and repairs, metering), as well as on the demand side (reductions in usage). Implementation should be conducted in phases, starting with the most obvious and lowest-cost options. In some cases one of the early steps will be reviewing regulatory constraints to water conservation, such as lawn irrigation requirements. Outside funding and grants may be available for implementation of projects. Engage water system operators and maintenance staff and customers in brainstorming opportunities to reduce water use. Ask the question: “How can I help save water?”

<!-- page 1182 -->
### PROGRESS SINCE 2006 - IS THIS YOUR COMMUNITY’S FIRST WATER SUPPLY PLAN? YES ☐ NO √

Outlined below in Table 21 are the objectives identified within the 2008 publication of the WSP.

#### Table 21 – Implementation of Previous Ten-year Conservation Plan

| 2008 Plan Commitments | Action Taken? |
| :--- | :--- |
| Metering | √ Yes <br><br> ☐ No |
| Reducing Unaccounted Water | √ Yes <br><br> ☐ No |
| Water Rates | √ Yes <br><br> ☐ No |
| Regulation | √ Yes <br><br> ☐ No |
| Educational and Information Programs | √ Yes <br><br> ☐ No |
| Retrofitting Programs | √ Yes <br><br> ☐ No |

**What are the results you have seen from the actions in Table 21 and how were results measured?**

A description of each strategy adopted with the 2008 WSP, along with a discussion of the results of these efforts are provided below. A graphical illustration is also provided in Appendix 8 and Section 3.B (Figure 5) herein to show the declining trend in water consumption for the last ten years as well as the projected consumption for the next cycle. The declining trend is attributable to efforts expended both internally by WTDS resources and the consumer base for water conservation and/or the “wise use” of water.

### Metering

WTDS meters essentially all of its customers including residential, commercial, industrial, public facilities, and temporary water permit holders. Extra efforts have been implemented recently in order to meter those points-of-use that were not previously metered either through retrofitting existing sites or requiring meters with newly permitted projects and operational changes. Water meters vary in size from 5/8-inch to 12-inch.

All of the water meters within the City were changed out between 1992 and 2000 as part of the implementation of the automated meter reading program. In 2008 WTDS rolled-out a program to test and document the performance of a select group of water meters based on customer type and years operation. The program is carried out annually and is designed to reduce unaccounted water at the points-of-use. The

<!-- page 1183 -->
results of the program thus far reveal that 25 years is a realistic life expectancy for a 5/8-inch to 1-inch meter. Commercial meters starting at 1-1/2-inch and larger require a 7-year maintenance program. Commercial meters beyond 7 years of service require recondition and/or replacement. The field testing required to accomplish this task is minimal as most of the meter assemblies of WTDS’s commercial customers are not fitted with a meter bypass. Water services for newly permitted commercial and industrial customers are fitted with the proper meter bypass plumbing which allows for in-situ performance testing. The metering and subsequent billing programs promote wise use of water and contribute positively to water conservation.

### Reducing Unaccounted Water

Unaccounted Water has averaged 15% to 19% over the previous five years. WTDS believes this finding is attributable to a combination both permitted and non-permitted activities including distribution system flushing, private and public fire-flow testing, construction water for dust construction and street sweeping, drinking fountains and irrigation systems, and other non-essential uses. Water volumes lost as a result of seasonal watermain breaks and system failures can also be significant and will influence unaccounted water tabulated at the end of the reporting year.

Through the development and roll-out of certain administrative and operational programs over the past few years, WTDS has been able to reduce unaccounted water. The programs include leak investigations and corrective actions, water audits, adopting new technologies and strategies for metering at the intakes and points of use. WTDS has a full-time leak investigator on staff. If a leak is observed on a City watermain actions are taken as quickly as possible to address the issue. If the leak is determined to be on a private service line, the consumer is notified by mail that the leak must be repaired by no later than 15 calendar days from the date of the letter. If the leak is not repaired during this time, WTDS will take the necessary actions to repair the service and charge the customer. There are approximately 40 – 50 water main breaks (on the 1,000 miles of public main) each year and approximately 300 private service line leaks. Most leaks (both public and private) are identified by the following means:

*   Residents experiencing low water pressure / volume.
*   Residents noticing water bubbling up out of the ground.
*   Residents noticing rumbling noise in their domestic water piping when they are not using any water.
*   Workers from other Public Works divisions noticing water running in a storm drain or catch basin during dry weather.

In 2015 WTDS commissioned a leak detection survey to ascertain the integrity of the water distribution system. The focus of the study resided with pipe sizes of 4 inches through 12 inches in diameter and private services ranging between 5/8-inch to 1-1/2-inch in diameter. A total of 874 miles of pipe were surveyed. The results of the study revealed a total of 31 leaks among hydrants, valve packing, and private services. An estimated 365 gallons per day was reported as being lost as a result of these leaks. Since completing the study, all of the necessary corrective actions have been implemented to address these issues. WTDS is confident that for the next cycle, a reduction to the *Unaccounted for Water* metric will be less than the 15% to 19% measured over the past five years.

<!-- page 1184 -->
# Water Rates

**Billing Frequency:** Monthly

**Volume included in base rate or service charge:** None

**Uniform rate:** WTDS utilizes a Uniform Rate Structure for water usage

**Water Rates Evaluated:** Every year

**Date of last rate change:** Jan. 1, 2016

The volume-based water rates for direct customers are uniform.  The 2016 rates for customers inside the City limits is $3.50/billing unit.  A single billing unit equals 1000 cubic feet.  The current rate for customers outside the City limits is $3.60/billing unit.  There is a minimum charge of $3.50 even if no usage is measured.  Wholesale rates to other public water suppliers vary per contract.  A copy of the approved Water Rate Structure is provided in Appendix 9.

The combination of metering all customer accounts, along with a monthly billing cycle promotes wise use of water and contributes positively to the conservation efforts of this WSP.  It is noteworthy to mention that monthly sewer charges are also based on water usage which further promotes wise use of water by the customer base.

<!-- page 1185 -->
### Minneapolis Water Rates (Adopted by Council Resolution on January 1, 2016)

| Year | Water Charge per Unit (per 100 cubic feet) | Water Minimum | Outside City Water | Water Tax (%) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 2016/17 | $3.50 | $3.50 | $3.60 | 7.75% |

| Meter Size | Monthly Minimum Charge | Fire Line Monthly Charge |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 5/8" | $3.00 | -- |
| ¾" | $4.50 | -- |
| 1" | $7.50 | -- |
| 1-½" | $15.00 | $2.50 |
| 2" | $24.00 | $2.50 |
| 3" | $48.00 | $3.33 |
| 4" | $75.00 | $5.00 |
| 6" | $150.00 | $10.00 |
| 8" | $240.00 | $15.83 |
| 10" | $345.00 | $22.92 |
| 12" | $990.00 | $65.83 |

**Regulation**

As indicated in the section discussing Enforcement of Demand Reduction Procedures, the City of Minneapolis has ordinances in place for emergency water restrictions. The director of WTDS, the City Engineer or the appointed representative of either, has the flexibility in the method, timing, and duration of the restrictions applied. Regulatory actions in the form of fines and water shut-offs are implemented as deemed necessary by WTDS and the Water Advisory Board. A copy of the current ordinance is provided in Appendix 10

### State and Federal Regulations (mandated)

The Minneapolis City Council enacts ordinances to regulate construction, maintenance, and remodeling so that the buildings where citizens live, work, and play will be safe. The City uses permits to make sure that the work is done in compliance with those ordinances. The City of Minneapolis enforces national and international codes adopted by the State of Minnesota. It is assumed the State codes include:

<!-- page 1186 -->
☒ Rainfall sensors on landscape irrigation systems. Minnesota Statute 103G.298 requires “All automatically operated landscape irrigation systems shall have furnished and installed technology that inhibits or interrupts operation of the landscape irrigation system during periods of sufficient moisture. The technology must be adjustable either by the end user or the professional practitioner of landscape irrigation services.”

☒ Water Efficient Plumbing Fixtures. The 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act established manufacturing standards for water efficient plumbing fixtures, including toilets, urinals, faucets, and aerators.

Enforcement is handled by the Regulatory Services and Emergency Preparedness Division of the City Coordinator’s office. Regulatory Services provides the investigation and enforcement of laws and ordinances pertaining building and housing code inspections from plan review through construction and system commissioning.

### Education and Information Programs

All of WTDS’s educational efforts and public outreach emphasize the inherent value of drinking water and the importance of preservation and conservation of this resource. Over the past 10 years the public outreach efforts include:

*   Annual (May) distribution of Consumer Confidence Reports. Future reports will provide specific resources for customers to learn more about water conservation.

*   Annual (January) notices of water billing rates are directly mailed to customers and will provide specific resources for customers to learn about water conservation.

*   All customers receiving direct mailings from the Utility billing department receive a brochure prepared by the American Water Works Association entitled “Water Conservation at Home” which includes information on treating drinking water as a valuable resource and discusses how water is metered and used in the home and ways to reduce that use.

*   The Water Division’s web site on the City’s internet site (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/water/) includes a page of “Water Conservation Resources” providing links to information on water saving tips, water efficient fixtures and use of rain barrels

*   Tours given to students from grade-school through college age, educators, citizen groups, etc. on a regular basis emphasize the need to treat drinking water as a valuable resource.

*   Media interviews are given as requested.

*   Support by the Theater and Art Communities’ advocacy of water. A 2007-08 example includes support of In the Heart of the Beast Mask and Puppet Theater’s “Invigorate the Common Well” series.

<!-- page 1187 -->
The City of Minneapolis is committed to providing sustainable options for metro living. "Green" construction is a holistic approach which encompasses healthy air quality, sustainable building materials, conservation of water, energy efficiency and environmentally friendly landscaping. The City’s website (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mdr/GreenBuildingOptions_home.asp) provides residents and business owners many options for going “Green” which can help citizens protect the environment, conserve water, and often save money over the lifetime of the investment.

### Retrofitting Programs

The City’s Utility Billing maintains the following website: “Money Saving Tips: Ways to Reduce Your Utility Bill” http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/utility-billing/saving.asp This page includes a direct link to the US EPA’s “Water Sense” web site which includes a product listing of water-efficient devices.

The Minneapolis Development Review, responsible for City building permits, maintains a link on their website to a Green Building Options Checklist, http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mdr/docs/greenbuildchecklist.pdf, which includes recommendations and information on installation of water efficient fixtures and rain barrels. This checklist also gives links to other green building sites.

The "Water’s Off" program contributes to the overall water conservation. The Water's Off event is held each spring with volunteers from Minneapolis/St. Cloud Plumbers Local 15 donating their time to repair plumbing and retrofit old fixtures for the low-income, elderly and disabled homeowners. Contractors donate the use of their service trucks and the material for all the necessary repairs and the work is completely free to homeowners who qualify through Minneapolis community action programs. These programs supply the Water's Off committee with the names of people who meet guidelines to ensure that the people needing the help will receive it.

<!-- page 1188 -->
# A. TRIGGERS FOR ALLOCATION AND DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIONS

### Table 22 – Short and Long-term Demand Reduction Conditions - Triggers and Actions

| Objective | Triggers | Actions |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Protect Surface Water Flows | Low stream flow conditions | Increase promotion of conservation measures |
| Short-term demand reduction (less than 1 year) | Extremely high seasonal water demand (more than double winter demand)<br><br>Loss of treatment capacity<br><br>State drought plan | Enforce the critical water deficiency ordinance to restrict or prohibit lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation & other nonessential uses. |
| Long-term demand reduction (>1 year) | Per capita demand increasing<br><br>Total demand increase | Enforce water deficiency ordinance that is or can be quickly adopted to penalize lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation & other nonessential uses.<br><br>Meet with large water users to discuss user’s contingency plan.<br><br>Enhanced monitoring and reporting: audits, meters, billing, etc. |
| Governor’s “Critical Water Deficiency Order” declared | As declared | As Stipulated by State Statue or DNR Drought Response Plan |

# B. CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

**Objective 1: Reduce Unaccounted Water loss to Less than 10%**

Is your ten-year average (2005-2014) unaccounted Water Use in Table 2 higher than 10%?

√ Yes ☐ No – The 10-year average is 14%

As discussed previously, WTDS has made significant strides and investments both financially and operationally to reduce Unaccounted (i.e. non-revenue) Water. WTDS utilizes the AWWA recommended Water Audit Software for additional tracking and assessment of non-revenue water within the system. The software provides WTDS with the proper accounting and auditing platform to measure the water produced (e.g.

<!-- page 1189 -->
appropriate, treated, distributed) to that metered or consumed at the points of use. It is WTDS’s opinion that the next cycle will reveal a value of less than 10% for the ten-year average of unaccounted water.

**What is your leak detection monitoring schedule?**

WTDS has a full-time leak investigator on staff. The leaks reported or detected are investigated and repaired as soon as possible. Leak detection is handled on a daily/weekly basis throughout the year dependent upon available resources.

**What is the date of your most recent water audit?** November 30, 2015

**Frequency of water audits:** √ yearly $\square$ other (as needed)

**Leak detection and survey:** $\square$ every year $\square$ every other year √ periodic (as needed)

**Year last leak detection survey completed:** November 2015

### Metering

American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends that every water supplier install meters to account for all water taken into its system for treatment and distribution, along with all water distributed to the customer's points-of-service. An effective metering program relies upon periodic performance testing, repair, and maintenance or replacement of meters. AWWA also recommends that water suppliers conduct regular water audits to ensure accountability. Some cities install separate meters for interior and exterior water use, but some research suggests that this may not result in water conservation.

#### Table 23 - Information about Customer Meters

| Customer Category | Number of Customers | Number of Metered Connections | Number of Automated Meter Readers | Meter testing intervals (years) | Average age/meter replacement schedule (years |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Residential | 76,421 | 76,421 | N/A | N/A | 25 |
| Irrigation meters | 973 | 973 | N/A | N/A | 25 |
| Institutional (Wholesale) | 6 | 13 | N/A | 2 years | 7 |
| Commercial | 6,154 | 8,426 | N/A | 2 years | 7 |
| Industrial | 132 | 208 | N/A | 2 years | 7 |
| Public Facilities (Government) | 1,054 | 1,206 | N/A | 2 years | 25 |
| Other: Multiple Dwellings | 14,868 | 14,954 | N/A | 2 years | 25 |
| TOTALS | 99,608 | 101,778 | 100,869 |  |  |

<!-- page 1190 -->
WTDS is also taking steps to digitize the metering program through the development and roll-out of the Advance Meter Infrastructure (AMI) program. The goal of the program is to have “real-time” monitoring data for residential, commercial, and industrial meters throughout the system. The system is designed to provide real-time data of water usage at the points of use and an indication of a failing or failed meter. AMI is expected to yield faster response times by WTDS crews with any needed repairs and replacements. This also provides WTDS with the opportunity of notifying customers in advance of the water utility bill of a leaking fixture or excessive water use that maybe unknown to the customer. The program is anticipated to be fully on-line by the year 2024.

### Table 24 – Water Source Meters

Source water metering is handled at the Fridley Softening Plant. Differential pressure instrumentation was installed on the venturies in 2005 as part of a SCADA system upgrade to the softening plant. The instrumentation undergoes all manufacturer-recommended testing and preventative maintenance.

| | Number of Meters | Meter testing schedule | Number of Automated Meter Readers | Average age/meter replacement schedule (years |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| River Intakes | 4 | Annually | 4 | As Needed |

#### Objective 2: Achieve Less than 75 Residential Gallons per Capita Demand (GPCD)

Residential water usage has been declining over the past several years from values as high as 71 GPCD (1998) to as low as 47 GPCD (2015). The declining trend is believed to be attributable to the success of the conservation programs and more cognizant use of water by the customer base. WTDS expects to be well below the objective of 75 GPCD for the next cycle.

**Is your average 2010-2015 residential per capita water demand in Table 2 more than 75?**

☐ Yes ✓ No

The lowest per capita value recorded for residential consumption was in 2015 at 47 GPCD. This is believed to be attributable to successful water conservation programs, education, and institution of water conserving devices (e.g. low flow shower heads, irrigation systems equipped with rain sensory devices, household plumbing) available within the market place.

**What was your 2005 – 2014 ten-year average residential per capita water demand?**

54 GPCD

<!-- page 1191 -->
### Table 25 – Strategies and Timeframe to Reduce Residential Per Capita Demand

Although residential water usage is declining, the need for conservation practices and programs is still necessary and important. The following strategies are those currently employed by WTDS. It is proposed that these strategies remain current through the next cycle.

| Strategy to reduce residential per capita demand | Timeframe for completing work |
| :--- | :--- |
| Revise city ordinances/codes to encourage or require water efficient landscaping. | Current/As Needed |
| Revise city ordinance/codes to permit water reuse options, especially for non-potable purposes like irrigation, groundwater recharge, and industrial use. Check with plumbing authority to see if internal buildings reuse is permitted | Current |
| Make water system infrastructure improvements | Current/As Needed |
| Implement a notification system to inform customers when water availability conditions change. | Current |
| Identify supplemental Water Resources | 10 years |
| Conduct audience-appropriate water conservation education and outreach. | Current |
| Automated (Real-time) Metering Instrumentation (AMI) | 12 years |

**Objective 3: Achieve at least a 1.5% per year water reduction for Institutional, Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural GPCD over the next 10 years or a 15% reduction in ten years.**

Over the past 10 years, with the exception of years 2007 (+1.02%) and 2012 (+4.86%), the annual water usage by these customers has declined on average of about 2.5%. Most recently by almost 8% between the water consumption measured in 2014 to that measured in 2015. Although it is difficult to predict future water usage, WTDS feels that this trend will continue over the next 10 year cycle which exceeds the plan objective.

It is also the opinion of WTDS staff that the above referenced decline in water consumption for this category of water customers is partially attributable to the institution and success of the grant program administered by MCES specific to large water users within the metropolitan area.

<!-- page 1192 -->
### Table 26 – Strategies and Timeframe to Reduce Institutional, Commercial Industrial, and Agricultural and Non-revenue Use Demand

| Strategy to reduce total business, industry, agricultural demand | Timeframe for completing work |
| :--- | :--- |
| Install enhanced meters capable of automated readings to detect spikes in consumption | 12 years |
| Repair leaking system components (e.g., pipes, valves) | Current |
| Train employees how to conserve water | Current |
| Implement a notification system to inform non-residential customers when water availability conditions change. | 10 years |

**Objective 4: Achieve a Decreasing Trend in Total Per Capita Demand**

It is evident that water conservation programs and practices are finding success in the larger effort to reduce the use of water. Through the institution of better metering practices and instrumentation, development and use of household and commercial water conservation devices and techniques, and improved commercial and industrial water processes, the water conservation programs are yielding significant success in reducing water consumption and minimizing the burden on appropriations and treatment. The "declining" water use trend-line depicted in Figure 5 is attributable to the development, roll-out, and implementation of the many private and governmental water conservation programs promoting wise-use of water and techniques introduced into the industry since the late 1980s and early 1990s. A declining trend in water use is estimated to continue when looking outward at the next 10-year cycle, but it is WTDS’s opinion that this trend-line will be less sharp, and slightly more stable perhaps on the order of 1-2% rather than the 4-8% which was observed for the last 5 to 10 years.

<!-- page 1193 -->
Figure 5 – Historic Water Demand (GPCD)

<<FIGURE>>

**Objective 5: Reduce Peak Day Demand so that the Ratio of Average Maximum day to the Average Day is less than 2.6**

Since 2003, the calculated Ratio of Average Maximum day to the Average Day result has not exceeded 2.0. WTDS does not anticipate that this value will exceed 2.6 based on the observed reduction is water usage.

**Is the ratio of average 2005-2014 maximum day demand to average 2005-2014 average day demand reported in Table 2 more than 2.6?** ☐ Yes √ No

**Calculate a ten year average (2005 – 2014) of the ratio of maximum day demand to average day demand:**

1.78

**Objective 6: Implement a Conservation Water Rate Structure and/or a Uniform Rate Structure with a Water Conservation Program**

The Uniform Rate Structure (URS) was developed in recognition of the statutory provisions outlined in MN 103G.291, subd. 4 which stipulates that a public water supplier serving more than 1,000 people must employ water-use demand reduction measures, including a conservation rate structure that encourages conservation. A copy of the URS is provided in Appendix 9.

In 2008 WTDS staff underwent a study and prepared a presentation for the DNR to highlight the results of WTDS’s *critical metrics* calculations used by the DNR to assess the efficacy of a permit holder’s water conservation program. The purpose of the presentation and subsequent discussion was to demonstrate the success WTDS is having through the institution of the URS and supplemental efforts (e.g. leak detection and metering) and to garner acceptance by the DNR for continuation of the same as it applies to the statutory requirements of this WSP.

<!-- page 1194 -->
The critical metrics referenced above include residential GPCD, Total GPCD, and Peak Demand. The findings of these analyses revealed that the City of Minneapolis is and has been historically below the respective thresholds established by the MnDNR for water use. The same findings are observed through 2015. Furthermore, the data for the previous 10-years suggests that a declining trend will continue into the next 10-year cycle and likely beyond this time frame.

Inclusive to the above critical metrics is the issue concerning the rates or fees employed by the City of Minneapolis compared to other water suppliers within the metropolitan area. The rates approved by the City of Minneapolis - Water Advisory Board are the highest within the metropolitan area. The unique costs associated with surface water treatment and distribution is much higher than that of water suppliers whose source is through groundwater appropriations. The higher-than-average cost provides the indirect benefit of conservation through more cognizant use of water by the customers and encouragement within the households and business to employ conservation strategies.

On these grounds, WTDS maintains that the URS and on-going conservation efforts satisfy the statutory requirements for water conservation associated with this WSP. These measures will continue to be employed and monitored each year through the next 10-yeat cycle.

### Water Conservation Program

As defined herein, a Water Conservation Program is for the purpose of sustaining the current water Supply and to Reduce or Optimize the use of water. The programs established by WTDS in support of this initiative include leak detection and corrective action planning and implementation, periodic water audits, and education and outreach. Recent advancements in metering strategies and instrumentation have also contributed to water conservation through enhanced data analysis and prioritization of operation and maintenance related activities. On an economic scale, the higher than average fees and frequent (monthly) billing cycles also promotes more conscientious use of water by the customer base. It is through these strategies WTDS has found success in reducing “per capita” water demand and are witness to a declining trend in total annual water use.

### Current Water Rates

A copy of the City of Minneapolis’ Fee Schedule is provided herein.

Frequency of billing: $\quad$ V Monthly $\quad$ ☐ Bimonthly $\quad$ ☐ Quarterly $\quad$ ☐ Other:

Water Rate Evaluation Frequency: V every year $\quad$ ☐ every ___ years $\quad$ ☐ no schedule

Date of last rate change: Dec. 17, 2015

<!-- page 1195 -->
### Table 27 – Rate structures for each customer category

| Customer Category | Conservation Billing Strategies in Use | Conservation Neutral Billing Strategies in Use | Non-Conserving Billing Strategies in Use |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Residential, Commercial, Institutional | Uniform | None | None |

#### Objective 7: Additional strategies to Reduce Water Use

The Conservation Objectives outlined below are those that WTDS adopted in 2008 through approval of the WSP including Regulatory, Education and Outreach, and Retrofitting conservation measures where feasible. The City of Minneapolis is also is the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan in fulfillment of the City’s obligations associated with the Land Use Planning Act. WTDS envisions that the City’s Comprehensive Plan, once complete, will include discussion and/or policy in water conservation. More discussion with the Environmental Systems research team is expected to ensue.

### Table 28 – Additional strategies to Reduce Water Use & Support Wellhead Protection

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| √ | Regulatory |
| √ | Education and Outreach |
| √ | Retrofitting Conservation Measures where applicable |
| √ | Master Planning |
| √ | Implement a Stormwater Management Program |

#### Objective 8: Tracking Success: How will you track or measure success through the next ten years?

The effort of tracking and measuring the success of the aforementioned objectives will be handled in the same fashion as that of the previous 10-year cycle which includes data management (e.g. integrity reviews and record keeping) and data assessments. The water-use metrics outlined in Section C – Conservation Objectives and Strategies including the maximum day demand to average day demand, total per capita demand, reduction of unaccounted for water, and others are tabulated and reviewed on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis by WTDS staff. Reviews are performed to make note of any irregularities and/or other unique findings that differ from those recorded historically. Unique findings are further investigated and reported on.

<!-- page 1196 -->
### C. REGULATION

Complete Table 29 by selecting which regulations are used to reduce demand and improve water efficiencies. Add additional rows as needed.

#### Table 29 – Regulations for Short-term Reductions in Demand and Long-term Improvements in Water Efficiencies

| Regulations Utilized | When is it applied (in effect)? |
| :--- | :--- |
| Critical/Emergency Water Deficiency ordinance | √ Only during declared Emergencies |
| Ordinances that permit stormwater irrigation, reuse of water, or other alternative water use (Note: be sure to check current plumbing codes for updates) | √ Ongoing |

### D. RETROFITTING PROGRAMS

Education and incentive programs aimed at replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures and appliances can help reduce per capita water use, as well as energy costs. It is recommended that municipal water suppliers develop a long-term plan to retrofit public buildings with water efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances. Some water suppliers have developed partnerships with organizations having similar conservation goals, such as electric or gas suppliers, to develop cooperative rebate and retrofit programs.

#### Retrofitting Programs

Complete Table 30 by checking which water uses are targeted, the outreach methods used, the measures used to identify success, and any participating partners.

#### Table 30 - Retrofitting Programs

| Water Use Targets | Outreach Methods | Partners |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| General Public | Education | MPLS Public Works |

Briefly discuss measures of success from the above table (e.g. number of items distributed, dollar value of rebates, gallons of water conserved, etc.):

#### Education and Information Programs

Customer education should take place in three different circumstances. First, customers should be provided information on how to conserve water and improve water use efficiencies. Second, information should be provided at appropriate times to address peak demands. Third, emergency notices and educational materials about how to reduce water use should be available for quick distribution during an emergency.

<!-- page 1197 -->
### Proposed Education Programs

Complete Table 31 by selecting which methods are used to provide water conservation and information, including the frequency of program components. Select all that apply and add additional lines as needed.

#### Table 31 – Current and Proposed Education Programs

| Education Methods | General summary of topics | #/Year | Frequency |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Billing inserts or tips printed on the actual bill | Water Conservation and Methods | 12 | √ Ongoing |
| Consumer Confidence Reports | Water Quality and Water Conservation | 1 | √ Ongoing |
| Social media distribution (e.g., emails, Facebook, Twitter) | Water Conservation and Methods | 6 | √ Ongoing |
| Staff training | Water Conservation, Methods, and Non-Essential Water | 12 | √ Ongoing |
| Facility tours | Water appropriation, treatment, distribution | 30(+/-) | √ Ongoing |
| Information kiosk at utility and public buildings | Water Quality and Water Conservation | Daily | √ Ongoing |
| Community Events | Water Conservation and Methods | 1-2 | √ Ongoing |
| Website ([http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/water/](http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/water/)) | Water Conservation and Methods | Daily | √ Ongoing |

<!-- page 1198 -->
# 4.0 Items for Metropolitan Area Communities

Minnesota Statute 473.859 requires WSPs to be completed for all local units of government in the seven-county Metropolitan Area as part of the local comprehensive planning process.

Much of the information in Parts 1-3 address water demand for the next 10 years. However, additional information is needed to address water demand through 2040, which will make the WSP consistent with the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, upon which the local comprehensive plans are based.

This Part 4 provides guidance to complete the WSP in a way that addresses plans for water supply through 2040.

### A. WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2040

Complete Table 7 in Part 1D by filling in information about long-term water demand projections through 2040. Total Community Population projections should be consistent with the community’s system statement, which can be found on the Metropolitan Council’s website and which was sent to the community in September 2015.

Projected Average Day, Maximum Day, and Annual Water Demands may either be calculated using the method outlined in *Appendix 2* of the *2015 Master Water Supply Plan* or by a method developed by the individual water supplier.

### B. POTENTIAL WATER SUPPLY ISSUES

Complete Table 10 in Part 1E by providing information about the potential water supply issues in your community, including those that might occur due to 2040 projected water use.

The *Master Water Supply Plan* provides information about potential issues for your community in *Appendix 1 (Water Supply Profiles)*. This resource may be useful in completing Table 10.

You may document results of local work done to evaluate impact of planned uses by attaching a feasibility assessment or providing a citation and link to where the plan is available electronically.

### C. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO MEET EXTENDED WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Complete Table 12 in Part 1F with information about potential water supply infrastructure impacts (such as replacements, expansions or additions to wells/intakes, water storage and treatment capacity, distribution systems, and emergency interconnections) of extended plans for development and redevelopment, in 10-year increments through 2040. It may be useful to refer to information in the community’s local Land Use Plan, if available.

Complete Table 14 in Part 1F by checking each approach your community is considering to meet future demand. For each approach your community is considering, provide information about the amount of future water demand to be met using that approach, the timeframe to implement the approach, potential partners, and current understanding of the key benefits and challenges of the approach.

As challenges are being discussed, consider the need for: evaluation of geologic conditions (mapping, aquifer tests, modeling), identification of areas where domestic wells could be impacted, measurement and analysis of water levels & pumping rates, triggers & associated actions to protect water levels, etc.

<!-- page 1199 -->
### D. VALUE-ADDED WATER SUPPLY PLANNING EFFORTS (OPTIONAL)

The following information is not required to be completed as part of the local water supply plan, but completing this can help strengthen source water protection throughout the region and help Metropolitan Council and partners in the region to better support local efforts.

**Source Water Protection Strategies**

Does a Drinking Water Supply Management Area for a neighboring public water supplier overlap your community? √ Yes ☐ No

If you answered no, skip this section. If you answered yes, please complete Table 32 with information about new water demand or land use planning-related local controls that are being considered to provide additional protection in this area.

#### Table 32 - Local Controls and Schedule to Protect Drinking Water Supply Management Areas

| Local Control | Schedule to Implement | Potential Partners |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Comprehensive planning that guides development in vulnerable drinking water supply management areas | TBD | TBD |

**Technical assistance**

From your community’s perspective, what are the most important topics for the Metropolitan Council to address, guided by the region’s Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee, as part of its ongoing water supply planning role?

√ Coordination of state, regional and local water supply planning roles
√ Regional water use goals
√ Water use reporting standards
√ Regional and sub-regional partnership opportunities
√ Identifying and prioritizing data gaps and input for regional and sub-regional analyses

<!-- page 1200 -->
# Appendix 1 (Not Applicable)

Well Records and Maintenance Summaries

<!-- page 1201 -->
# Appendix 2

Water Level Monitoring Plan

<!-- page 1202 -->
| timestamp | PS05_04_IN_221_LI_VAL0 |
| :--- | :--- |
| 1/1/2015 0:00 | 91.05874634 |
| 1/1/2015 1:00 | 91.01125336 |
| 1/1/2015 2:00 | 90.95999908 |
| 1/1/2015 3:00 | 90.94374847 |
| 1/1/2015 4:00 | 90.8125 |
| 1/1/2015 5:00 | 90.68125153 |
| 1/1/2015 6:00 | 90.63124847 |
| 1/1/2015 7:00 | 90.66374969 |
| 1/1/2015 8:00 | 91.01000214 |
| 1/1/2015 9:00 | 91.00875092 |
| 1/1/2015 10:00 | 90.99250031 |
| 1/1/2015 11:00 | 90.94374847 |
| 1/1/2015 12:00 | 90.86000061 |
| 1/1/2015 13:00 | 90.84625244 |
| 1/1/2015 14:00 | 90.87875366 |
| 1/1/2015 15:00 | 91.02500153 |
| 1/1/2015 16:00 | 90.89499664 |
| 1/1/2015 17:00 | 90.92749786 |
| 1/1/2015 18:00 | 90.95999908 |
| 1/1/2015 19:00 | 90.95999908 |
| 1/1/2015 20:00 | 90.97750092 |
| 1/1/2015 21:00 | 90.99500275 |
| 1/1/2015 22:00 | 90.99375153 |
| 1/1/2015 23:00 | 91.00875092 |
| 1/2/2015 0:00 | 91.02625275 |
| 1/2/2015 1:00 | 91.04125214 |
| 1/2/2015 2:00 | 91.04249573 |
| 1/2/2015 3:00 | 91.05874634 |
| 1/2/2015 4:00 | 91.05874634 |
| 1/2/2015 5:00 | 91.04125214 |
| 1/2/2015 6:00 | 91.05750275 |
| 1/2/2015 7:00 | 91.09124756 |
| 1/2/2015 8:00 | 91.07499695 |
| 1/2/2015 9:00 | 91.04249573 |
| 1/2/2015 10:00 | 91.02625275 |
| 1/2/2015 11:00 | 91.01000214 |
| 1/2/2015 12:00 | 90.99375153 |
| 1/2/2015 13:00 | 91.01125336 |
| 1/2/2015 14:00 | 90.99500275 |
| 1/2/2015 15:00 | 90.99250031 |
| 1/2/2015 16:00 | 91.00875092 |
| 1/2/2015 17:00 | 91.02625275 |
| 1/2/2015 18:00 | 91.01125336 |
| 1/2/2015 19:00 | 91.01000214 |
| 1/2/2015 20:00 | 90.99375153 |
| 1/2/2015 21:00 | 90.97624969 |
| 1/2/2015 22:00 | 90.99250031 |
| 1/2/2015 23:00 | 90.97750092 |
| 1/3/2015 0:00 | 90.99375153 |
| 1/3/2015 1:00 | 91.01000214 |
| 1/3/2015 2:00 | 91.00749969 |

<!-- page 1203 -->
10/28/2016 10:00        90.21499634
10/28/2016 11:00        90.21624756
10/28/2016 12:00        90.18250275
10/28/2016 13:00        90.21624756

<!-- page 1204 -->
# Appendix 3 (Not Applicable)

Water Level Graphs for Each Water Supply Well

<!-- page 1205 -->
# Appendix 4

Capital Improvement Plan

<!-- page 1206 -->
Capital Budget Request - Public Works - Water

Summary: 2017 to 2021 | Version: 4/6/16 - Submitted via COGNOS for CLIC

| | | | | values in $ 1000's | | | | | | Current 5 years | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Priority | Project # | Description | prev. 5 years | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Beyond | Total requested | Total requested |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| #N/A | WTR 0R | Reimbursable Watermain Projects | 10,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 10,000 | 22,000 |
| 2 | WTR12 | Water Distribution Improvements | 30,900 | 7,250 | 7,350 | 7,450 | 7,550 | 7,650 | 7,750 | 37,250 | 75,900 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | *30,900* | *7,250* | *7,350* | *7,450* | *7,550* | *7,650* | *7,750* | | *75,900* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | | | | | | | | | *-* |
| 5 | WTR18 | Water Distribution Facility | 8,500 | 7,500 | 7,500 | - | - | - | - | 15,000 | 23,500 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | *3,000* | | | | | | | | *3,000* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | *5,500* | *7,500* | *7,500* | | | | | | *20,500* |
| 3 | WTR23 | Treatment Infrastructure Improvements | 21,250 | 3,000 | 4,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,500 | 22,000 | 48,750 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | *21,250* | *3,000* | *4,000* | *5,000* | *5,000* | *5,000* | *5,500* | | *48,750* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | | | | | | | | | |
| 1 | WTR24 | Fridley Filter Plant Rehabilitation | 21,500 | 18,500 | 16,500 | 9,500 | - | - | - | 44,500 | 66,000 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | *800* | *1,500* | | | | | | | *2,300* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | *20,700* | *17,000* | *16,500* | *9,500* | | | | | *63,700* |
| | WTR25 | Ground Water Supply | 2,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2,000 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | *2,000* | | | | | | | | *2,000* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | | | | | | | | | |
| 4 | WTR26 | Recarbonation System Replacement | 4,000 | 4,500 | - | - | - | - | - | 4,500 | 8,500 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | *3,000* | *1,000* | | | | | | | *4,000* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | *1,000* | *3,500* | | | | | | | *4,500* |
| 7 | WTR27 | Automated Meter Infrastructure | 250 | 2,620 | 700 | 1,800 | 1,700 | - | - | 6,820 | 7,070 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | *250* | | | | | | | | *250* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | | *2,620* | *700* | *1,800* | *1,700* | | | | *6,820* |
| 6 | WTR28 | Ultrafiltration Module Replacement | - | 2,200 | 2,200 | 2,200 | 2,200 | - | - | 8,800 | 8,800 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | | | | | | | | | *-* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | | *2,200* | *2,200* | *2,200* | *2,200* | | | | *8,800* |
| 8 | WTR29 | Columbia Heights Campus Upgrades | - | 500 | 4,180 | 4,250 | 4,200 | 1,340 | - | 14,470 | 14,470 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | | *500* | | | | | | | *500* |
| | | *Bond Funded* | | | *4,180* | *4,250* | *4,200* | *1,340* | | | *13,970* |
| | | **Total Capital program** | | | | | | | | | |
| | | *Reimburseable Total* | 10,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 10,000 | 22,000 |
| | | *Revenue Funded* | 61,200 | 13,250 | 11,350 | 12,450 | 12,550 | 12,650 | 13,250 | not | 136,700 |
| | | *Bond Funded* | 27,200 | 32,820 | 31,080 | 17,750 | 8,100 | 1,340 | - | split | 118,290 |
| | | **Total Capital program** | **98,400** | **48,070** | **44,430** | **32,200** | **22,650** | **15,990** | **15,250** | **######** | **276,990** |

<!-- page 1207 -->
# Appendix 5

Emergency Telephone List

<!-- page 1208 -->
# Attachment 3

## Emergency Telephone List

| Emergency Response Team | Name | Work Telephone | Alternate Telephone |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Emergency Response Lead | Annika Bankston | 612-661-4975 | 612-581-0416 |
| Alternate Emergency Response Lead | George Kraynick | 612-661-4923 | 412-268-0821 |
| Water Operator | Steve Valtinson | 612-661-4916 | 612-799-7612 |
| Alternate Water Operator | Jim Forslund | 612-661-4961 | 612-437-0421 |
| Public Communications | George Kraynick | 612-661-4923 | 412-268-0821 |

| State and Local Emergency Response Contacts | Name | Work Telephone | Alternate Telephone |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| State Incident Duty Officer | Minnesota Duty Officer | 800/422-0798 Out State | 651-649-5451 Metro |
| County Emergency Director | Emergency Management | 612-596-0250 | |
| National Guard | Minnesota Duty Officer | 800/422-0798 Out State | 651-649-5451 Metro |
| Mayor/Board Chair | Minneapolis Mayors Office | 612-673-2100 | |
| Fire Chief | General Information | 612-673-2890 | |
| Sheriff | Henn Cnty Sheriff's Office | 612-348-3744 | |
| Police Chief | General Information | 612-673-5701 | |
| Ambulance | 911 | 911 | |
| Hospital | HCMC | 612-873-3000 | |
| Doctor or Medical Facility | HCMC | 612-873-3000 | |

| State and Local Agencies | Name | Work Telephone | Alternate Telephone |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MDH District Engineer | Engineering Services | 651-201-5000 | |
| MDH | Drinking Water Protection | 651-201-4700 | |
| State Testing Laboratory | Minnesota Duty Officer | 800/422-0798 Out State | 651-649-5451 Metro |
| MPCA | General Information | 651-296-6300 | 1-800-657-3864 |
| DNR Area Hydrologist | Kate Drewry | 651-259-5753 | |
| County Water Planner | Joe Settles | 612-348-6157 | |

| Utilities | Name | Work Telephone | Alternate Telephone |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Electric Company | Xcel Energy (James Nash) | 612-630-4187 | 612-201-4384 |
| Gas Company | Centerpoint Energy (Casey Tollefson) | 612-321-5502 | 612-321-5480 |
| Telephone Company | | | |
| Gopher State One Call | Utility Locations | 800-252-1166 | 651-454-0002 |
| Highway Department | | | |

| Mutual Aid Agreements | Name | Work Telephone | Alternate Telephone |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Neighboring Water System | St. Paul (Dave Wagner) | | |
| Neighboring Water System | Golden Valley (Jeff Oliver) | 763-593-8030 | |
| Neighboring Water System | Crystal (Mark Ray) | 763-531-1160 | |
| Neighboring Water System | New Hope (Dave Lemke) | 763-592-6762 | Chris Long – 651-492-7747 |
| Neighboring Water System | Edina (Chad Millner) | 952-826-0318 | |
| Neighboring Water System | Bloomington (City Utility Division) | 952-563-8777 | |
| Neighboring Water System | New Brighton (Craig Schlichting) | 651-638-2100 | |
| Emergency Water Connection | | | |
| Materials | | | |

<!-- page 1209 -->
| Technical/Contracted Services/Supplies | Name | Work Telephone | Alternate Telephone |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MRWA Technical Services | MN Rural Water Association | 800-367-6792 | |
| Well Driller/Repair | Braun Intertec (Ray Huber) | 952-995-2000 | |
| Pump Repair | | | |
| Electrician | | | |
| Plumber | | | |
| Backhoe | | | |
| Chemical Feed | | | |
| Meter Repair | Water Treatment and Distribution Services | 612-661-4955 | |
| Generator | | | |
| Valves | | | |
| Pipe & Fittings | | | |
| Water Storage | | | |
| Laboratory | | | |
| Engineering firm | | | |

| Communications | Name | Work Telephone | Alternate Telephone |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| News Paper | Star Tribune | 612-673-4414 | |
| Radio Station | | | |
| School Superintendent | MPLS Public Schools | 612-668-0000 | |
| Property & Casualty Insurance | | | |
| | | | |

| Critical Water Users | Name | Work Telephone | Alternate Telephone |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Hospital Critical Use: | HCMC | 612-873-3000 | |
| Nursing Home Critical Use: | HCMC | 612-873-3000 | |
| Public Shelter Critical Use: | HCMC | 612-873-3000 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |

<!-- page 1210 -->
# Appendix 6 (Not Applicable)

Cooperative Agreements for Emergency Services

<!-- page 1211 -->
# Appendix 7

### Municipal Critical Water Deficiency Ordinance

<!-- page 1212 -->
City Code of Ordinances
Title 19: Water, Sewers, and Sewage Disposal
Ch. 509. Water, §§ 509.10--509.1490
Art. I. Generally, §§ 509.10--509.240
Art. II. Waterworks Fund, §§ 509.250--509.320
Art. III. Service Pipes and Connections, §§ 509.330--509.590
Art. IV. Meters Generally, §§ 509.600--509.700
Art. V. Rates and Charges, §§ 509.730--509.800
Art. VI. Billing, §§ 509.820--509.930
**Art. VII. Notices and Turning Water Off, §§ 509.960--509.1050**
Art. VIII. Utility Special Assessments, § 509.1080
Art. IX. Fire Protection and Hydrants, §§ 509.1100--509.1140
Art. X. Control and Protection of Supply, §§ 509.1170--509.1440
**Art. XI. Sprinkling During Shortages, §§ 509.1470--509.1490**

----------

### Art. VII. Notices and Turning Water Off, §§ 509.960--509.1050

**509.960. Shut-off for public interest, misuse, waste or violation.** Any violation of chapter 509 may cause water to be shut off. Water may also be shut off if the director of the waterworks determines that the use, misuse or waste of water adversely affects the health, safety or welfare of the public. No one shall turn water on or off without authority from the city. Whenever water is found on without authority, it may be immediately turned off without further notice. (98-Or-134, § 1, 11-13-98)

### Art. XI. Sprinkling During Shortages, §§ 509.1470--509.1490

**509.1470. Water use limited during emergency period.** No person shall draw or use water from the city water mains or city waterworks system other than as permitted by the declaration of emergency during any period of emergency caused by shortage of water supply or lowering of water pressure in the water mains of the city. (77-Or-070, § 1, 4-7-77; 98-Or-135, § 38, 11-13-98)

**509.1480. Declaration of emergency.** The city engineer or the appointed representative of the city engineer shall declare the existence of such an emergency as and when it may become necessary, shall determine the period of such an emergency and the termination thereof, shall decide the daily hours of restriction, the method of restriction, and shall decide upon the proper notification to customers of such restrictions. (77-Or-070, § 2, 4-7-77; Pet. No. 251069, § 26, 12-15-89; 98-Or-135, § 39, 11-13-98)

**509.1490. Administrative fee.** For a first violation of the declaration of emergency, the occupant of the premises or the owner thereof will receive a warning of the offense. Subsequent violations of the declaration of emergency will result in a turnoff of the water supply to the premises. Written notice posted on the premises at the time of the violation will be considered sufficient notice prior to turnoff of the water supply. No water supply which has been turned off because of a violation of this article shall be turned on until twenty-five dollars ($25.00) has been paid to the Minneapolis waterworks division, together with the regular charge for turning off and on water service. The city engineer may, in the event of demonstrated economic hardship, waive a portion of the twenty-five dollar ($25.00) administrative fee, but not exceeding fifteen dollars ($15.00). The violation may also be subject to the penalties in Chapter 1 of this Code. (77-Or-070, § 3, 4-7-77; 98-Or-135, § 40, 11-13-98)

<!-- page 1213 -->
# Appendix 8

Graph Showing Annual per Capita Water Demand for Each Customer Category
During the Last Ten Years

<!-- page 1214 -->
# Water Demand

<<FIGURE>>

| Year | Residential Water Delivered (MG) | C/I/I Water Delivered (MG) | Wholesale Deliveries (MG) (to suburbs) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 2005 | 8,340 | 8,284 | 4,213 |
| 2006 | 8,487 | 6,047 | 4,500 |
| 2007 | 8,390 | 6,113 | 4,557 |
| 2008 | 8,052 | 5,820 | 4,170 |
| 2009 | 8,064 | 5,616 | 4,435 |
| 2010 | 7,705 | 5,482 | 3,606 |
| 2011 | 7,516 | 5,291 | 4,166 |
| 2012 | 7,823 | 5,564 | 4,374 |
| 2013 | 7,562 | 5,331 | 3,904 |
| 2014 | 7,243 | 5,257 | 3,558 |
| 2015 | 7,178 | 4,879 | 3,799 |
| 2016 | 5,551 | 3,702 | 3,107 |

<!-- page 1215 -->
# Appendix 9

Water Rate Structure

<!-- page 1216 -->
# OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
# MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL

## ADJOURNED SESSION OF THE
## REGULAR MEETING OF
## DECEMBER 5, 2014
## HELD DECEMBER 10, 2014

(Published December 20, 2014, in *Finance and Commerce*)

Council President Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present.

Present - Council Members Kevin Reich, Cam Gordon, Jacob Frey, Blong Yang, Abdi Warsame, Lisa Goodman, Elizabeth Glidden, Alondra Cano, Lisa Bender, John Quincy, Andrew Johnson, Linea Palmisano, President Barbara Johnson.

On motion by Glidden, the agenda was adopted.

Council President Johnson welcomed elected officials representing the Park & Recreation Board and the Board of Estimate & Taxation.

On motion by Glidden, Council Rule VIII (2) (D) was suspended to allow members of the public to address the City Council.

A public hearing was held to receive comments on the proposed 2015 budget and tax levy. A complete copy of the speakers list is available for public inspection, as set forth in Petition No. 277829 on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

On motion by Glidden, the meeting was recessed at 8:01 p.m. to allow the Board of Estimate & Taxation to meet.

President Johnson reconvened the meeting at 8:17 p.m.

The following reports were signed by Mayor Betsy Hodges on December 11, 2014. Minnesota Statutes, Section 331A.01, Subd 10, allows for summary publication of ordinances and resolutions in the official newspaper of the city. A complete copy of each summarized ordinance and resolution is available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk.

### REPORT OF THE WAYS & MEANS/BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE

On behalf of the Ways & Means/Budget Subcommittee, Quincy offered Resolution 2014R-518 approving the 2014 property tax levies, payable in 2015, for the various funds of the City of Minneapolis for which the City Council levies taxes.

<!-- page 1217 -->
# DECEMBER 10, 2014

Warsame moved that the resolution be amended by decreasing the General Fund levy by $174,000 to a total of $153,929,000 and decreasing the total levy for the various funds to $222,814,000.

Glidden moved a substitute to the Warsame amendment that the resolution be amended by increasing the General Fund levy by $620,000 to a total of $154,723,000 and increasing the total levy for various funds to $223,608,000 with the intent of using these additional levy resources to mitigate future levy increases by supplementing the property tax stabilization account.

On roll call, the result of the Glidden substitute was:
Ayes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson (6)
Noes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Palmisano, President Johnson (7)
The motion failed.

On roll call, the result of the Warsame amendment was:
Ayes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Palmisano, President Johnson (7)
Noes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson (6)
The motion was adopted.

The following is the complete text of the unpublished summarized resolution.

### RESOLUTION 2014R-518
### By Quincy

**Approving the 2014 property tax levies, payable in 2015, for the various funds of the City of Minneapolis for which the City Council levies taxes.**

Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis:

That the following taxes and tax levies are hereby assessed against and levied based on taxable value upon the real and personal property in the City of Minneapolis in 2014 for taxes payable in 2015 for the following funds:

| FUND | CERTIFIED LEVY AMOUNT |
| :--- | :--- |
| General Fund | $153,929,000 |
| Municipal Building Commission | $4,675,000 |
| Permanent Improvement | $1,000,000 |
| Bond Redemption | $35,900,000 |
| Firefighters Relief Association (MFRA) | $2,745,000 |
| Police Relief Association (MPRA) | $6,415,000 |
| Minneapolis Employees Retirement (MERF) | $18,150,000 |
| **Total** | **$222,814,000** |

Be It Further Resolved that the difference between the amounts herein levied for the Bond Redemption Fund and the aggregate of levies previously certified to the Hennepin County Auditor are made up by cash from prior years’ balances. The dollar amount shown in the levy is hereby certified and such amounts to be determined by the County Auditor are to be due to the City under the “Fiscal Disparities” law.

<!-- page 1218 -->
# DECEMBER 10, 2014

Be It Further Resolved that a tax levy of **$9,300,000 be assessed against and levied based on market value** upon the real and personal property in the City of Minneapolis in 2014 for taxes payable in 2015 for debt service associated with the voter approved Library Referendum Bond authorization of 2000 for $140,000,000.

Be It Further Resolved that a Special Tax Levy (Chapter 595) of **$1,021,000** with an estimated Tax Capacity Rate of 0.246 be assessed against and levied based on taxable value upon the real and personal property in the City of Minneapolis in 2014 for taxes payable in 2015 **for a Special Levy under Chapter 595** to be initially deposited in the General Fund of the City upon receipt from the County and to be used only for expenditures consistent with Chapter 595.

Be It Further Resolved that the **Certified Local Government Aid (LGA)** Amount estimated at **$77,388,236** shall be initially distributed as follows:

| | |
| :--- | ---: |
| Municipal Building Commission | $232,938 |
| Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board | $9,133,360 |
| General Fund | $68,021,938 |
| **Total** | **$77,388,236** |

On roll call, the result was:
Ayes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Palmisano, President Johnson (7)
Noes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson (6)
The resolution, as amended, was adopted.

On behalf of the Ways & Means/Budget Subcommittee, Quincy offered Resolution 2014R-519 fixing the maximum amounts to be expended by the various departments for 2015 from the various funds under the jurisdiction of the City Council for which the City Council levies taxes and fees.

Yang moved that the resolution be amended by:

1. Reducing the appropriation in the Communications Department by $174,000 and 2.0 FTEs, and reducing the General Fund property tax revenues by $174,000; and

2. Utilizing $250,000 in available one-time General Fund resources to:

a) Reinstate the $150,000 to the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department for the One Minneapolis Fund;

b) Reinstate the $75,000 to the City Coordinator Department for the Clean Energy Initiative; and

c) Allocate the remaining $25,000 to the Community Planning & Economic Development Department to reinstate a portion of the 2015 appropriation for homeownership counseling and outreach.

3. Directing the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department to provide guidelines for expenditures of the consolidated TIF fund for neighborhood revitalization purposes, using existing and previous policies, practices, and precedents, such as special uses like the Affordable Housing/Commercial Corridor Reserve Fund. A key feature that should be included

<!-- page 1219 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

from past guidelines is the requirement for neighborhood review and sponsorship. The guidelines should be specific for intended uses, be they special initiatives or larger scale activities such as Large Tract Development activities. Staff is to present this recommendation to the City Council no later than May 31, 2015.

Gordon moved a substitute to the Yang amendment to utilize $250,000 in available one-time General Fund resources and reduce the appropriation for the Convention Center marketing enhancement by $200,000 to:

1. Reinstate $75,000 to the City Coordinator Department for the Clean Energy Initiative;

2. Reinstate $150,000 to the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department for the One Minneapolis Fund;

3. Provide $30,000 to the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department for costs associated with Project Lookout, previously directed to be funded from the One Minneapolis Fund;

4. Reinstate $125,000 to the Community Planning & Economic Development Department for the Homeownership Support and Foreclosure Prevention Program; and

5. Reinstate $70,000 to the City Coordinator Department to complete an evaluation of the City's neighborhood and community engagement system.

On roll call, the result of the Gordon substitute was:
Ayes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson (6)
Noes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Palmisano, President Johnson (7)
The motion failed.

On motion by Glidden, Yang's motion to amend the resolution was divided and renumbered so as to consider each item separately, as follows:

1. Reducing the appropriation in the Communications Department by $174,000 and 2.0 FTEs, and reducing the General Fund property tax revenues by $174,000.

On roll call, the result of the Yang amendment was:
Ayes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Palmisano, President Johnson (7)
Noes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson (6)
The motion was adopted.

2. Utilizing $150,000 in available one-time General Fund resources for the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department for the One Minneapolis Fund;

On roll call, the result of the Yang amendment was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (13)
Noes: (0)
The motion was adopted.

<!-- page 1220 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

3. Utilizing $75,000 in available one-time General Fund resources for the City Coordinator Department for the Clean Energy Initiative.

On roll call, the result of the Yang amendment was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (13)
Noes: (0)
The motion was adopted.

4. Utilizing $25,000 in available one-time General Fund resources for the Community Planning & Economic Development Department to reinstate a portion of the 2015 appropriation for homeownership counseling and outreach.

On roll call, the result of the Yang amendment was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (13)
Noes: (0)
The motion was adopted.

5. Directing the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department to provide guidelines for expenditures of the consolidated TIF fund for neighborhood revitalization purposes, using existing and previous policies, practices, and precedents, such as special uses like the Affordable Housing/Commercial Corridor Reserve Fund. A key feature that should be included from past guidelines is the requirement for neighborhood review and sponsorship. The guidelines should be specific for intended uses, be they special initiatives or larger scale activities such as Large Tract Development activities. Staff is to present this recommendation to the City Council no later than May 31, 2015.

On motion by Gordon, the staff direction was referred to the Health, Environment & Community Engagement Committee.

Gordon moved that the resolution be amended by reducing the allocation to the Convention Center marketing enhancement by $30,000 and increasing the allocation to the One Minneapolis Fund by $30,000.

On roll call, the result of the Gordon amendment was:
Ayes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson (6)
Noes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Palmisano, President Johnson (7)
The motion failed.

Cano moved that the resolution be amended by reducing the appropriation in the Convention Center marketing enhancement by $50,000 and increasing the appropriation in the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department by $50,000 for support services to help implement President Obama's executive order on immigration.

On roll call, the result of the Cano amendment was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (13)
Noes: (0)
The motion was adopted.

<!-- page 1221 -->
# DECEMBER 10, 2014

Glidden moved that the resolution be amended by reducing the appropriation for the Convention Center marketing enhancement by $100,000 to reinstate $100,000 for the Community Planning & Economic Development Department for the Homeownership Support and Foreclosure Prevention Program.

On roll call, the result of the Glidden amendment was:
Ayes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson (6)
Noes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Palmisano, President Johnson (7)
The motion failed.

On motion by Palmisano, the resolution was amended by directing the Internal Audit Department to work with the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department and other City Coordinator departments to create a scope of work and then oversee an evaluation of NCR Programs using existing budgeted resources. Staff is directed to report back findings of the evaluation to the Committee of the Whole by August 2015.

On motion by Bender, the resolution was amended by directing the Public Works, Regulatory Services, and Police departments to provide existing resources to facilitate up to eight (8) Open Streets events in 2015.

A. Johnson moved that the resolution be amended by transferring $55,000 from the Convention Center marketing enhancement to the City Attorney's Office to increase funding for restorative justice.

On roll call, the result of the A. Johnson amendment was:
Ayes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson (6)
Noes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Palmisano, President Johnson (7)
The motion failed.

Cano moved that the resolution be amended by reducing the appropriation to the Community Planning & Economic Development Department by $200,000 for 2.0 FTEs in construction code services and increasing the appropriation to the Communications Department by $174,000 for 2.0 FTEs to increase collaboration with the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department and non-English media outlets, and increasing the One Minneapolis Fund by $26,000.

On roll call, the result of the Cano amendment was:
Ayes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano, Bender, A. Johnson (5)
Noes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Quincy, Palmisano, President Johnson (8)
The motion failed.

Goodman moved the previous question on the resolution fixing operating budgets for City departments under the jurisdiction of the City Council for Fiscal Year 2015, as amended.

On roll call, the result was:
Ayes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Quincy, Palmisano, President Johnson (8)
Noes: Gordon, Glidden, Cano Bender, A. Johnson (5)
In the absence of a two-third majority required to call the question, the motion failed.

<!-- page 1222 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

The following is the complete text of the unpublished summarized resolution.

### RESOLUTION 2014R-519
### By Quincy

**Fixing the maximum amounts to be expended by the various departments for 2015 from the various funds under the jurisdiction of the City Council for which the City Council levies taxes and fees.**

Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis:

That there be appropriated out of the monies in the City Treasury and revenues of the City applicable to specifically named funds the maximum appropriation amounts as outlined in Financial Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 (Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Program Allocations), 6 and 7 as published in the final 2015 Adopted Budget Book.

Be It Further Resolved that the proper City officers be authorized to execute and/or carry out the intent of the 2015 Consolidated Plan program allocations (CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA entitlement grants), as amended, including the 2015 Adopted Budget Schedule 4 CDBG Program, and Schedules 6 CPED Program Allocations by fund.

Be It Further Resolved that the proper City officers be authorized to enter into any necessary grant agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to receive Fiscal Year 2015 Consolidated Plan funding.

### 2015 Operating Budget
### Resolution Footnotes:

a) Financial Management Policies, as included in the Financial Policies Section of the 2015 Adopted Budget book, are hereby adopted as part of the 2015 budget.

b) That this resolution may be cited as the "General Appropriation Resolution of 2015."

### Changes to the Recommended Budget

c) Amend the Mayor’s 2015 recommended budget to utilize $80,000 in anticipated savings from the reduction in the 2015 citywide health insurance premium to increase the 2015 recommended budget in the City Clerk's Office and add 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) (Council Committee Coordinator).

d) Amend the Mayor’s 2015 recommended budget to increase expense appropriation and staffing in the City Clerk's Office by $100,000 and 1.0 FTE, respectively, for the purposes of managing data practices request with on-going costs to be recouped through the City’s internal cost allocation mechanism.

e) Amend the Mayor’s 2015 recommended budget to reduce the property tax levy increase by:

1. Reducing 50 percent of the one-time funding for a Civil Rights Disparity Study in the Civil Rights Department by $150,000.

<!-- page 1223 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

2. Reducing 50 percent of the one-time funding in the City Coordinator Department for the Clean Energy Initiative of $150,000 (reduction of $75,000).

3. Reducing the one-time funding in the Convention Center by $100,000.

4. Eliminating the tax increment financing (TIF) activities in the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department (NCR) by $150,000 for staff/program expenses and $150,000 recommended for the One Minneapolis Fund and utilize the $300,000 of TIF to replace General resources in NCR.

5. Reduce ongoing funding for health insurance by $120,000 to reflect lower premiums.

6. Reduce ongoing funding in the Community Planning & Economic Development (CPED) Department for Homeownership Counseling and Outreach by $125,000 and shifting an additional $75,000 to one-time funding.

f) Amend the Mayor’s 2015 recommended budget in the Communications, Community Planning & Economic Development, and Neighborhood & Community Relations Departments by shifting Upper Harbor Terminal ($250,000) and Communications ($174,000) positions from TIF funding to the General Fund and shifting Neighborhood & Community Relations General Fund allocation ($424,000) from the General Fund to TIF funding.

g) Amend the Mayor’s 2015 recommended budget to reduce the transfer to the Convention Center Fund for the purpose of marketing, events, and community engagement programming by $10,000 and further reduce the Arts, Culture & Creative Economy budget by a total of $15,000, and increasing funding to Arts in Public Places by $25,000. Further direct that funding to Arts in Public Places for 2015 be dedicated to conservation of public art.

h) Amend the Mayor’s 2015 recommended budget in the Regulatory Services Department to include funding for Homeline Services in the amount of $100,000 to be funded from the Regulatory Services Fund.

i) Amend the Mayor’s 2015 recommended budget in the Community Planning & Economic Development Department to direct $1.5 million in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding currently earmarked for the Senior Housing Initiative ($1.0 million) and the Owner Occupied Rehab Program ($0.5 million) to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and to prioritize up to $2.5 million from the City’s development accounts for qualified affordable housing projects.

j) Reducing the appropriation in the Communications Department by $174,000 and 2.0 FTEs, and reducing the General Fund property tax revenues by $174,000.

k) Utilizing $150,000 in available one-time General Fund resources to reinstate the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department for the One Minneapolis Fund.

l) Utilizing $75,000 in available one-time General Fund resources to reinstate the City Coordinator Department for the Clean Energy Initiative.

m) Utilizing $25,000 in available one-time General Fund resources to reinstate a portion of the 2015 appropriation for the Community Planning & Economic Development Department homeownership counseling and outreach.

<!-- page 1224 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

n) Reducing the Convention Center’s marketing enhancement appropriation by $50,000 and increasing the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department appropriation by $50,000 for support services to help implement President Obama’s executive order on immigration.

### Directions to Staff

o) Direct the Finance and Property Services Department to amend all schedules and language according to amended budgets.

p) Direct the Finance and Property Services Department to update the five-year financial direction budgets and staff directions.

q) Direct the Public Works Department to report to the Transportation & Public Works Committee by January 31, 2015, with proposed specific projects for the 2015 Capital Budget for the Paving Program.

r) Direct the Community Planning & Economic Development Department to report to the Community Development & Regulatory Services and Ways and Means Committees by July 1, 2015, with the financial status of the Great Streets Façade Improvement and Business District Support Programs for evaluation prior to issuance of the 2015 Request for Proposals.

s) Direct the City Coordinator to include staff from multiple departments, including CPED, to solicit, evaluate, and recommend proposals for downtown activation activities that align with City goals and complement City initiatives.

t) Direct the Fire Department to commence with recruit classes as soon as feasible and report back to Ways and Means Committee with a plan to maintain staffing at the approved complement level by July 1, 2015, for the purpose of reviewing and recommending mechanisms to provide for enhanced staffing levels.

u) Direct the Community Planning & Economic Development Department to complete an analysis of existing housing stock and housing needs in Minneapolis to inform future policy decisions that support housing options for all levels of income including the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Transit-Oriented Development program as well as potential policy changes that support housing affordability such as inclusionary zoning.

v) Direct the Intergovernmental Relations Department to lead a staff workgroup to identify opportunities for the City to support the Minneapolis implementation for the Presidential executive order on immigration and bring forward a proposal with a recommended resolution acknowledging the City’s commitment.

w) Direct the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department to coordinate with the Communications Department and other City departments to provide planning, supportive services, and outreach for the implementation of President Obama’s executive order on immigration policy.

x) Direct the City Coordinator Department to convene key department stakeholders to research how we are currently supporting the need and make recommendations on how to support and services of communications technology could be enhanced, including, but not limited to, the potential to move responsibility for the existing Radio Communications & electronics work unit from Finance and Property Services Department to the Information Technology Department.

<!-- page 1225 -->
# DECEMBER 10, 2014

y) Direct the Community Planning & Economic Development Department to develop a five-year Art in Public Places capital plan and report back to the Community Development & Regulatory Services and the Ways & Mean committees by March 31, 2015.

z) Direct the Regulatory Services Department to provide a status update of the activities performed by Homeline to the Community Development & Regulatory Services committee by July 1, 2015.

aa) Direct the Neighborhood & Community relations Department (NCR) for a one-time provision of $55,000 for the Minneapolis Highrise representative Council for Project Lookout utilizing $30,000 from the One Minneapolis Fund and the remainder to come from the department's year savings.

bb) Direct the Minneapolis Police Department to allocate up to $75,000 of its recommended 2015 expense appropriation to partner with the City Attorney's Office and the Domestic Abuse Hotline.

cc) Direct the Finance & Property Services Department Procurement Division, in collaboration with affected City departments, to:

1. Compile historical information of the City's utilization of single source contracts and report back to the Committee of the Whole and Ways & Means Committees in the first quarter with recommendations for policy considerations to provide more opportunities for supplier diversity in procurement activities; and

2. Review existing standards for insurance and bonding for City contractors, including comparison of standards used by the State of Minnesota and other public bodies, and report back to the Committee of the Whole and Ways & Means Committees in the first quarter with recommendations for policy considerations to provide more opportunities for supplier diversity in procurement activities.

dd) Direct the Finance & Property Services Department to facilitate the hiring of 5 new FTE positions in the Community Planning & Economic Development Department, Development & Construction Code Services Division.

ee) Direct the Community Planning & Economic Development Department to collaborate with Summit Academy OIC to facilitate participation in the City's job training programs.

ff) Directing the Internal Audit Department to work with the Neighborhood & Community Relations Department and other City Coordinator departments to create a scope of work and then oversee an evaluation of NCR Programs using existing budgeted resources, and to report back to the Committee of the Whole by August 2015.

gg) Directing the Public Works, Regulatory Services, and Police departments to provide existing resources to facilitate up to eight (8) Open Streets events in 2015.

### Technical Changes

hh) Amend the Mayor's recommended 2015 budget by $2,659,438, reducing fund 01CAZ revenue and fund 01CBY expense by $2,659,438 in the Community Planning & Economic Development department.

<!-- page 1226 -->
# DECEMBER 10, 2014

ii) Amend the Mayor's 2015 recommended budget by $300,000; reducing fund 07300 expense by $300,000 in the Public Works Department.

jj) Amend the Mayor's 2015 recommended budget by aligning recommended funding for the City's Capital Asset Request System (CARS) for all departments as needed.

kk) Amend the Mayor's 2015 recommended budget by $85,019; reducing fund 00100 revenue by $85,019 in the Public Works Department.

ll) Amend the Mayor's 2015 recommended budget by $118,667; by increasing revenue and expense appropriation for fund 00100 by $118,667 in the Public Works Department for special service district.

mm) Amend the Mayor's 2015 recommended budget by $2,024,000; by reducing expense appropriation for fund 07700 by $2,024,000 in the Public Works Department for organics rollout.

nn) Amend the Mayor's 2015 recommended budget by $140,000; by increasing expense appropriation for fund 00100 by $140,000 in the Regulatory Services Department for traffic control to match revenue.

oo) Amend the Mayor's 2015 recommended budget by $870,000; by increasing revenue and expense appropriation for fund 07ERT by $870,000 in the Community Planning & Economic Development Department for the Upper Harbor Terminal.

On roll call, the result was:
Ayes: Reich, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (12)
Noes: Gordon (1)
The resolution, as amended, was adopted.

On behalf of the Ways & Means/Budget Subcommittee, Quincy offered Resolution 2014R-520 adopting the 2015 - 2019 Five Year Capital Program and fixing the maximum amounts for 2015 to be expended by the various funds under the jurisdiction of the City Council.

The following is the complete text of the unpublished summarized resolution.

### RESOLUTION 2014R-520
### By Quincy

**Adopting the 2015 - 2019 Five Year Capital Program and fixing the maximum amounts for 2015 to be expended by the various funds under the jurisdiction of the City Council.**

Resolved by the City Council of the City of Minneapolis:

That the Five Year Capital Program for 2015 - 2019 is hereby adopted and that there be appropriated out of the monies of the City Treasury and revenues of the City applicable to specifically named funds and revenue sources, the following maximum appropriation amounts for 2015 as detailed in the Capital Section of the 2015 Adopted Budget:

<!-- page 1227 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

| Fund Department | Amount (thousands $) |
| :--- | ---: |
| **34200 9010901 MBC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS** | **1,700** |
| **14300 101000 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS** (c) | **4,621** |
| **04100 9010937 PUBLIC WORKS STREET PAVING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS** (a,b) | **42,835** |
| **04100 9010938 PUBLIC WORKS BRIDGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS** | **11,000** |
| **04100 9010939 PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS** | **3,520** |
| **04100 9010943 PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS** (c) | **10,460** |
| *TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS* | *67,815* |
| **04100 9010923 PROPERTY SERVICES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS** | **5,415** |
| **04100 9010970 NON-DEPARTMENTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS** (911 and Public Safety) | **1,835** |
| *TOTAL CITY FUND 04100 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS* | *75,065* |
| | |
| **06400 9010972 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNAL SERVICE FUND CAPITAL** | **2,850** |
| **07100 9010932 SANITARYSEWER ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL** | **7,425** |
| **07300 9010932 STORM SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL** | **10,920** |
| **07400 9010950 WATER SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL** | **22,495** |
| **07700 9010923 SOLID WASTE FUND CAPITAL** | **3,000** |
| **GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS** | **128,076** |

Be It Further Resolved that the following 2015 Capital Budget footnotes are hereby incorporated into the 2015 Capital Resolution:

a) Per Technical Budget Amendment 1i.) Public Works: Reducing Fund 04100 appropriation request by $3,500,000 and reducing other miscellaneous revenues by $3,385,000 and net debt bonds by $115,000 for the PV085 Nicollet Mall Reconstruction Project. This project was fully funded as part of the Public Works Capital Project Closeout action adopted by the City Council on December 5, 2014.

b) Per Staff Directive 3c.) Public Works is directed to report to T&PW Committee by January 31, 2015, with proposed specific projects for the 2015 Capital Budget for paving program.

c) As a result of reallocations made by the Park Board to their Operating and Capital budgets, the total allocation of park capital levy has been reduced by ($1,309,000) for 2015 compared to the 2015 Mayor’s Recommended Budget.

On roll call, the result was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (13)
Noes: (0)
The resolution was adopted.

<!-- page 1228 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

On behalf of the Ways & Means/Budget Subcommittee, Quincy offered Resolution 2014R-521 requesting that the Board of Estimate and Taxation authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds in the amount of $10,130,000 for certain purposes other than the purchase of public utilities.

The following is the complete text of the unpublished summarized resolution.

### RESOLUTION 2014R-521
### By Quincy

**Requesting that the Board of Estimate and Taxation authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds in the amount of $10,130,000 for certain purposes other than the purchase of public utilities.**

Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis:

That the Board of Estimate and Taxation be requested to authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds in the amount of $10,130,000, the proceeds of which are to be used for the purpose of paying the portion of the cost of making and constructing certain local improvements to be assessed against benefited properties as estimated by the City Council and the Park Board, including assessable portions of the costs relating to paving, mill and overlays, alley resurfacing, retaining walls, streetscapes, landscaping, curb and gutter, street lighting, traffic management plans, ornamental lighting and bike lane development, of which assessments shall be collected in successive equal annual installments, payable in the same manner as real estate taxes, with the number of installments determined by the type of improvement and current City Council policy.

| | | |
| :--- | :--- | ---: |
| PV001 | Parkway Paving Program (PV1501) | 50,000 |
| PV006 | Alley Renovation Program (PV1506) | 50,000 |
| PV027 | Hennepin/Lyndale | 195,000 |
| PV056 | Asphalt Pavement Resurfacing Program (PV1556) | 4,000,000 |
| PV061 | High Volume Corridor Reconditioning Program (PV1561) | 965,000 |
| PV063 | Unpaved Alley Construction (PV1563) | 50,000 |
| PV073 | 26th Ave N (W Broadway to Lyndale Ave N) | 695,000 |
| PV074 | CSAH & MnDOT Cooperative Projects (PV1574) | 3,170,000 |
| PV083 | Minnehaha Ave (24th to 26th St E) | 955,000 |
| | **Total** | **$10,130,000** |

On roll call, the result was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (13)
Noes: (0)
The resolution was adopted.

On behalf of the Ways & Means/Budget Subcommittee, Quincy offered Resolution 2014R-522 requesting that the Board of Estimate and Taxation authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds in the amount of $36,460,000 for certain purposes other than the purchase of public utilities.

<!-- page 1229 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

The following is the complete text of the unpublished summarized resolution.

### RESOLUTION 2014R-522
### By Quincy

**Requesting that the Board of Estimate and Taxation authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds in the amount of $36,460,000 for certain purposes other than the purchase of public utilities.**

Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis:

That the Board of Estimate and Taxation be requested to authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds, in the amount of $36,460,000, the proceeds of which are to be used as follows:

**Municipal Building Commission, in the amount of $1,000,000**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| MBC01 | Life Safety Improvements | 100,000 |
| MBC02 | Mechanical Systems Upgrade | 600,000 |
| MBC04 | MBC Elevators | 300,000 |

**Park & Recreation Board, in the amount of $2,500,000**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| PRK02 | Playground and Site Improvements Program | 960,000 |
| PRK03 | Shelter – Pool – Site Improvements Program | 600,000 |
| PRK04 | Athletic Fields and Site Improvements Program | 300,000 |
| PRK31 | Bossen Park Field Improvements | 640,000 |

**City Council, in the amount of $32,960,000**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| PV001 | Parkway Paving Program (PV1501) | 700,000 |
| PV006 | Alley Renovation Program (PV1506) | 200,000 |
| PV027 | Hennepin/Lyndale | 1,085,000 |
| PV056 | Asphalt Pavement Resurfacing Program (PV1556) | 500,000 |
| PV059 | Major Pavement Maintenance Program (PV1559) | 250,000 |
| PV061 | High Volume Corridor Reconditioning Program (PV1561) | 1,455,000 |
| PV063 | Unpaved Alley Construction (PV1563) | 150,000 |
| PV068 | LaSalle Ave (Grant to 8th) | 805,000 |
| PV070 | Riverside Extension – 4th St/15th Ave | 500,000 |
| PV073 | 26th Ave N (W Broadway to Lyndale Ave N) | 5,245,000 |
| PV074 | CSAH & MnDOT Cooperative Projects (PV1574) | 350,000 |
| PV083 | Minnehaha Ave (24th to 26th St E) | 335,000 |
| PV086 | 26th Ave N (Wirth Pkwy to Brdwy/Lyndale to River) | 815,000 |
| PV099 | 26th & 28th St Buffered Bike Lanes (Hiawatha to 35W) | 200,000 |
| PV101 | 29th St W Pedestrian Connection | 350,000 |
| PV104 | ADA Ramp Replacement Program (PV15104) | 1,000,000 |
| BR101 | Major Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation (BR1501) | 500,000 |
| BR130 | 7th St Ramp Bridge over 35W | 3,000,000 |
| SWK01 | Defective Hazardous Sidewalks (SWK15) | 305,000 |
| BIK28 | Protected Bikeways Program (BIK1528) | 790,000 |
| TR008 | Parkway Street Light Replacement (TR1508) | 350,000 |
| TR010 | Traffic Management Systems (TR1510) | 400,000 |
| TR011 | City Street Light Renovation (TR1511) | 550,000 |
| TR021 | Traffic Signals (TR1521) | 1,625,000 |

<!-- page 1230 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| TR022 | Traffic Safety Improvements (TR1522) | 310,000 |
| TR024 | Pedestrian Level Lighting Program (TR1524) | 500,000 |
| TR025 | Sign Replacement Program (TR1525) | 590,000 |
| FIR11 | New Fire Station No. 11 | 465,000 |
| FIR12 | Fire Station No. 1 Renovation & Expansion | 500,000 |
| MPD03 | Hamilton School Acquisition & Facility Improvement | 2,000,000 |
| PSD01 | Facilities – Repair & Improvements (PS1501) | 1,200,000 |
| PSD03 | Facilities – Space Improvements (PS1503) | 750,000 |
| PSD11 | Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction (PS15E11) | 500,000 |
| 91101 | 911 Telephone System Replacement | 135,000 |
| RAD01 | Public Safety Radio System Replacement | 1,700,000 |
| IT004 | Enterprise Infrastructure Modernization (IT1504) | 850,000 |
| IT033 | Police Report Management System Upgrade | 2,000,000 |
| | **Total** | **$36,460,000** |

On roll call, the result was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (13)
Noes: (0)
The resolution was adopted.

On behalf of the Ways & Means/Budget Subcommittee, Quincy offered Resolution 2014R-523 requesting that the Board of Estimate and Taxation authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds in the amount of $14,200,000 for certain purposes other than the purchase of public utilities.

The following is the complete text of the unpublished summarized resolution.

### RESOLUTION 2014R-523
### By Quincy

**Requesting that the Board of Estimate and Taxation authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds in the amount of $14,200,000 for certain purposes other than the purchase of public utilities.**

Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis:

That the Board of Estimate and Taxation be requested to authorize the City to incur indebtedness and issue and sell City of Minneapolis bonds in the amount of $14,200,000, the proceeds of which are to be used for sanitary sewer projects and water projects as follows:

Sanitary Sewer Projects – Fund 07100:
SA001 Sanitary Tunnel and Sewer Rehab Program (SA15401) 4,200,000
SA036 Infiltration & Inflow Removal Program (SA1536) 1,000,000

Water Projects – Fund 07400:
WTR24 Fridley Filter Plant Rehabilitation 8,000,000
WTR26 Recarbonation System Replacement 1,000,000
**Total $14,200,000**

<!-- page 1231 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

On roll call, the result was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Goodman, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano, President Johnson (13)
Noes: (0)
The resolution was adopted.

On behalf of the Ways & Means/Budget Subcommittee, Quincy offered Resolution 2014R-524 designating the utility rates for water, sewer, stormwater, solid waste, and recycling service effective with water meters read on and after January 1, 2015.

The following is the complete text of the unpublished summarized resolution.

# RESOLUTION 2014R-524
## By Quincy

**Designating the utility rates for water, sewer, stormwater, solid waste, and recycling service effective with water meters read on and after January 1, 2015.**

Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis:

Effective with utility billings for water meters read from and after **January 1, 2015**, the meter rates for water are hereby fixed and shall be collected as follows:

Charges commence when the street valve is turned on for water service.

(a) **Three dollars and thirty-seven cents ($3.37)** per one hundred (100) cubic feet for customers not otherwise mentioned.

(b) **Three dollars and fifty-two cents ($3.52)** per one hundred (100) cubic feet to municipalities, municipal corporations, villages and customers outside the corporate limits of the city where service is furnished through individual customer meters.

(c) Rates for municipalities, municipal corporations and villages, which are established by contract, shall continue on the existing contract basis.

(d) In addition to the above rates a fixed charge based on meter size will be billed each billing period or fraction thereof as follows:

| Meter Size | Fixed Charge |
| :--- | :--- |
| 5/8-inch | **$ 3.00** |
| 3/4-inch | **4.50** |
| 1-inch | **7.50** |
| 1 1/2-inch | **15.00** |
| 2-inch | **24.00** |
| 3-inch | **48.00** |
| 4-inch | **75.00** |
| 6-inch | **150.00** |
| 8-inch | **240.00** |

<!-- page 1232 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 10-inch | **345.00** |
| 12-inch | **990.00** |

(e) The fixed charge for a property serviced by a combined fire/general service line shall be based on the small side register of the combined meter, provided the volume of water used on the large side register does not exceed 45,000 gallons per year. The volume of water used on the large side register in the previous year will be used to establish the fixed rate in the current year. In addition to the fixed charge, a fire line rate shall be assessed according to the size of the large side register at the annual rates established in provision (f) of this section.

The fixed charge for a property serviced by a combined fire/general service line shall be based on the large side register of the combined meter, when volume of water used on the large side register exceeds 45,000 gallons per year. The volume of water used on the large side register in the previous year will be used to establish the fixed rate in the current year.

The fixed charge for a combined fire/general service line shall remain in place for the entire year.

(f) All fire standpipes, supply pipes and automatic sprinkler pipes with detector meters, direct meters or non-metered, shall be assessed according to size of connection at the following rates each per annum for the service and inspection of the fire protection pipes and meters installed, as follows:

1½ inch pipe connection ………$ 30.00  
2 inch pipe connection . ………$ 30.00  
3 inch pipe connection . ………$ 40.00  
4 inch pipe connection . ……… $ 60.00  
6 inch pipe connection . ………$120.00  
8 inch pipe connection . ……… $190.00  
10 inch pipe connection . ………$275.00  
12 inch pipe connection . ………$790.00  

When the seal of any of the valves connecting with such fire protection pipes shall be broken, it shall be forthwith resealed by a Public Works - Water Division representative. All connections for fire systems must have a post indicator valve installed at the curb if ordered by the superintendent of the waterworks. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 606.030; Ord. of 12-28-73, § 1)

(g) Rates for other services and materials provided shall be fixed as follows:

| Activity | Amount |
| :--- | :--- |
| **1. Damaged, Lost or New Water Meters** | |
| 5/8” | $ 120 |
| 3/4” | $ 140 |
| 1” | $ 175 |
| 1 ½” | $ 405 |
| 2” | $ 490 |
| 3” | $ 1,040 |
| 4” | $ 1,350 |
| 6” | $ 2,120 |

<!-- page 1233 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

**2. Damaged or Lost Reader Water Meter Equipment**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| ERT | $ | 130 |
| Encoder 5/8” – 1” | $ | 80 |
| Encoder 1 ½” or greater | $ | 125 |

**3. Remove, Install or Drain a Water Meter**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 5/8” – 1” | $ | 50 |
| 1 ½” – 2” | $ | 100 |
| 3” or greater | $ | 200 |

**4. Water Meter Testing**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 5/8” – 1” | $ | 100 |
| 1 ½” – 2” | $ | 200 |
| 3” or greater – on-site | $ | 300 |
| 3” or greater – Meter Shop test | $ | 500 |

**5. Water Meter Reading, Missed Appointments, Posting** | $ | 20 |

**6. Private Meter Trip Fee** | $ | 50 |
Equipment charged at cost
All applicable taxes will be applied

**7. Water Turn-On or Turn-Off**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Base Charge | $ | 45 |
| Winter Fee – Nov. 15 – Apr. 15 | $ | 25 |
| Delinquency Admin Fee | $ | 6 |
| Shut Off Valve Flush Fee | $ | 20 |

**8. Coupling Pricing for Water Meters** | Charged at cost of inventory |

**9. Water Service Tap Cutoff or Extension Permit** | $ | 50 |

**10. Water Hydrant Usage**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Permit | $ | 50 |
| Installation of equipment for garden usage | $ | 100 |
| Installation of equipment for construction, demolition and special event usage | $ | 200 |
| Hydrant sanitation for portable water usage | $ | 160 |
| Equipment deposit for residential demolition usage | $ | 1,200 |
| Equipment deposit for commercial construction and demolition usage | $ | 3,200 |
| Water usage charged at regular in city rate | | |

**11. Temporary Water Meter for Construction Usage**
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Permit | $ | 50 |
| Temporary water meter usage fee | $ | 200 |
| Equipment and water usage deposit | $ | 2,500 |
| Water usage charged at regular in city rate subtracted from initial deposit until consumed | | |

<!-- page 1234 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

#### 12. Large Water Main Tap by Tap Size*
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 6x4" | $ 1,974 |
| 6x6" | $ 2,223 |
| | |
| 8x4" | $ 2,121 |
| 8x6" | $ 2,191 |
| 8x8" | $ 2,928 |
| | |
| 10x4" | $ 2,413 |
| 10x6" | $ 2,429 |
| 10x8" | $ 2,682 |
| | |
| 12x4" | $ 2,138 |
| 12x6 | $ 2,288 |
| 12x8" | $ 3,101 |
| 12x12" | $ 5,174 |
| | |
| 16x4" | $ 2,742 |
| 16x6 | $ 2,462 |
| 16x8" | $ 3,818 |
| 16x12" | $ 5,065 |
| | |
| 24x4" | $ 2,417 |
| 24x6 | $ 3,000 |
| 24x8" | $ 4,074 |
| 24x12" | $ 5,788 |
| | |
| 30x4" | $ 3,505 |
| 30x6 | $ 3,711 |
| 30x8" | $ 5,169 |
| 30x12" | $ 8,556 |
| 36x4" | $ 3,766 |
| 36x6 | $ 3,879 |
| 36x8" | $ 4,901 |
| 36x12" | $ 7,935 |

#### 13. Small Water Main Tap by Size*
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 3/4x3/4" | $ 213 |
| 1x1" | $ 223 |
| 1x1¼" | $ 238 |

#### 14. Water Main Tap Discontinue by Size*
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 6x2" | $ 1,799 |
| 6x3" | $ 1,799 |
| 6x4" | $ 2,093 |
| 6x6" | $ 2,093 |
| | |
| 8x2" | $ 1,832 |
| 8x3" | $ 1,832 |
| 8x4" | $ 1,832 |

<!-- page 1235 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 8x6" | $ 2,299 |
| 8x8" | $ 2,299 |
| | |
| 10x2" | $ 1,899 |
| 10x3" | $ 1,899 |
| 10x4" | $ 1,899 |
| 10x6" | $ 2,985 |
| 10x8" | $ 2,985 |
| 10x10" | $ 2,985 |
| | |
| 12x2" | $ 1,964 |
| 12x3" | $ 1,964 |
| 12x4" | $ 1,964 |
| 12x6" | $ 1,964 |
| 12x8" | $ 3,052 |
| 12x12" | $ 3,052 |
| | |
| 16x2" | $ 2,492 |
| 16x3" | $ 2,492 |
| 16x4" | $ 2,492 |
| 16x6" | $ 2,492 |
| 16x8" | $ 2,492 |
| 16x12" | $ 4,188 |
| | |
| 24x2" | $ 2,899 |
| 24x3" | $ 2,899 |
| 24x4" | $ 2,899 |
| 24x6" | $ 2,899 |
| 24x8" | $ 2,899 |
| 24x12" | $ 2,899 |

### 15. Mechanical Plug Pricing*
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 4” Plug | $ 1,799 |
| 6” Plug | $ 1,811 |
| 8” Plug | $ 1,852 |
| 12” Plug | $ 1,899 |

*When site specific circumstances preclude the use of standard methods, the fee will be based on the City’s estimate for time and materials. Standard fee includes installation and $50 permit fee but not excavation.

### 16. Water Main Shut Down for Contractor $ 646

### 17. Penalties
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| a) Water Meter Tampering Penalty/Administration Fee/Violation Fee | $ 200 |
| b) Water Meter Bypass Valve Tampering Penalty | $ 500 |
| c) Unauthorized Water Service Turn-on Penalty | $ 500 |
| d) Water System Valve Tampering Penalty | $ 500 |
| e) Violation of Water Emergency Declaration | $ 25 |

<!-- page 1236 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

**The sanitary sewer rates and stormwater service rate shall be applied to utility billings for water meters read from and after <u>January 1, 2015</u>.**

### Sanitary Sewer Rate
The sanitary sewer rates to be charged properties within and outside the City of Minneapolis that are served directly by the City of Minneapolis sewer system and that are all served either directly or indirectly by the sewage disposal system constructed, maintained and operated by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services under and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 473.517, 473.519 and 473.521, Sub. 2, are hereby set as follows:

(a) The sanitary sewer rate applicable inside the City of Minneapolis is **<u>three dollars and twenty-one cents ($3.21)</u>** per one hundred (100) cubic feet.

(b) In addition, a fixed charge based on water meter size will be billed each billing period or fraction thereof as follows:

| Meter Size | Fixed Charge |
| :--- | :--- |
| 5/8-inch | **<u>$ 3.80</u>** |
| 3/4-inch | **<u>5.70</u>** |
| 1-inch | **<u>9.50</u>** |
| 1 1/2-inch | **<u>19.00</u>** |
| 2-inch | **<u>30.40</u>** |
| 3-inch | **<u>60.80</u>** |
| 4-inch | **<u>95.00</u>** |
| 6-inch | **<u>190.00</u>** |
| 8-inch | **<u>304.00</u>** |
| 10-inch | **<u>437.00</u>** |
| 12-inch | **<u>1254.00</u>** |

(c) The sanitary sewer rate applicable outside the City of Minneapolis for all sewage flow generated is **<u>three dollars and twenty-one cents ($3.21)</u>** per one hundred (100) cubic feet when the City of Minneapolis also provides water. In addition, the fixed charge sanitary sewer rate shall be based on meter size per section (b).

(d) Sanitary sewer only service outside the City of Minneapolis shall be twenty dollars ($20.00) per month.

(e) The sanitary sewer charge for residential property not exceeding three (3) residential units shall be based on the volume of water used during the winter season which is defined as a four (4) month period between November 1 and March 31.

(f) The sanitary sewer charge for residential property exceeding three (3) residential units and all other commercial and industrial property shall be based on measured sewage volume or the total water volume used during the billing period as is appropriate.

### Stormwater Rate
The stormwater rate, subject to the provisions in Chapter 510, of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, is imposed on each and every Single-Family Residential Developed Property, Other Residential Developed Property, Non-Residential Developed Property, and Vacant

<!-- page 1237 -->
# DECEMBER 10, 2014

Property, other than Exempt Property, and the owner and non-owner users, and is hereby set as follows:

(a) The Equivalent Stormwater Unit (ESU) rate is **<u>eleven dollars and ninety-four cents ($11.94)</u>**. The ESU measurement is 1,530 square feet of impervious area.

(b) The stormwater rate imposed on Single-Family Residential Developed Properties shall be categorized into three tiers based on the estimated amount of impervious area as follows:

High – Single-Family Residential Developed Property – greater than one thousand five hundred and seventy-eight (1,578) square feet of estimated impervious area. The ESU shall be 1.25 and the stormwater rate set at **<u>fourteen dollars and ninety-three cents ($14.93)</u>**.

Medium – Single-Family Residential Developed Property – equal to or greater than one thousand four hundred and eighty-five (1,485) square feet and less than or equal to one thousand five hundred and seventy-eight (1,578) square feet of estimated impervious area. The ESU shall be 1.00 and the stormwater rate set at **<u>eleven dollars and ninety-four cents ($11.94)</u>**.

Low – Single-Family Residential Developed Property – less than one thousand four hundred and eighty-five (1,485) square feet of estimated impervious area. The ESU shall be .75 and the stormwater rate set at **<u>eight dollars and ninety-six cents ($8.96)</u>**.

(c) Stormwater charges for all other properties will be based on the following calculation:
(Gross Lot Size in sq.ft. X Runoff Coefficient) $\div$ 1,530 sq. ft.= # of ESU
\# of ESU X **<u>$ 11.94</u>** = Monthly Fee

The runoff coefficient assumed for each land use category is shown below.

| Land Use | Coefficient Applied |
| :--- | :---: |
| Bar-Rest.-Entertainment | .75 |
| Car Sales Lot | .95 |
| Cemetery w/Monuments | .20 |
| Central Business District | 1.00 |
| Common Area | .20 |
| Garage or Misc. Res. | .55 |
| Group Residence | .75 |
| Ind. Warehouse-Factory | .90 |
| Industrial railway | .85 |
| Institution-Sch.-Church | .90 |
| Misc. Commercial | .90 |
| Mixed Comm.-Res-Apt | .75 |
| Multi-Family Apartment | .75 |
| Multi-Family Residential | .40 |
| Office | .91 |
| Parks & Playgrounds | .20 |
| Public Accommodations | .91 |
| Retail | .91 |
| Single Family Attached | .75 |
| Single Family Detached | ESU |

<!-- page 1238 -->
DECEMBER 10, 2014

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Sport or Rec. Facility | .60 |
| Utility | .90 |
| Vacant Land Use | .20 |
| Vehicle Related Use | .90 |

Solid waste and recycling variable rate charges associated with water meter read dates from and after **January 1, 2015**, the charges shall be as follows:

(a) The base unit charge shall be **twenty-one dollars and sixty cents ($21.60)** per dwelling unit per month.

(b) The cart disposal charge shall be two dollars ($2.00) per month for each small cart.

(c) The cart disposal charge shall be five dollars ($5.00) per month for each large cart assigned to a dwelling unit.

On roll call, the result was:
Ayes: Reich, Gordon, Frey, Yang, Warsame, Glidden, Cano, Bender, Quincy, A. Johnson, Palmisano (11)
Noes: Goodman, President Johnson (2)
The resolution was adopted.

On motion by Glidden, the meeting was adjourned.

Casey Joe Carl,
City Clerk

### INDEX

**WAYS AND MEANS BUDGET (See Rep):**
FINANCE DEPARTMENT (277827)
2015 Budget: Mayor's recommended budget.

FINANCE DEPARTMENT, ET AL (277828)
2015 Budget: Budget hearing presentations.

**FILED (See Rep):**
CITY COUNCIL (277829)
2015 Budget and Tax Levy: List of public hearing speakers and written comments.

FINANCE DEPARTMENT (277830)
2015 Proposed Budget Highlights.

Official Posting: 12/19/2014

<!-- page 1239 -->
# Appendix 10

Adopted or Proposed Regulations to Reduce Demand or Improve Water Efficiency

<!-- page 1240 -->
# CHAPTER 509. - WATER[^p1240-2]

*Footnotes:*
*--- (2) ---*
**Editor's note—**It should be noted that Ord. No. 98-Or-133, § 1, adopted Nov. 13, 1998, repealed Arts. V—VII of this chapter; Ord. No. 98-Or-134, § 1, adopted Nov. 13, 1998, added provisions designated as Arts. IV—VIII; and Ord. No. 98-Or-135, §§ 1—40, renumbered Arts. VIII—X as IX—XI and amended various sections therein. See the Code Comparative Table for a detailed analysis of inclusion of said ordinances.

**Charter reference—** Damaging waterworks property, Ch. 9, § 16.

**State Law reference—** Fluoridation required, M.S. § 144.145.

## ARTICLE X. - CONTROL AND PROTECTION OF SUPPLY[^p1240-9]

*Footnotes:*
*--- (9) ---*
**Editor's note—**Ord. No. 98-Or-125, § 8, adopted Nov. 13, 1998, renumbered Art. IX as Art. X. See also the editor's note at Ch. 509.

### 509.1170. - Supply required.

Every building intended for human occupancy or use shall be provided with ample supply of potable water. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.010; 98-Or-135, § 9, 11-13-98)

**Cross reference—** Standards and requirements for water used for drinking and domestic purposes, Ch. 196; polluted water wells, § 250.10 et seq.

### 509.1180. - Inspection of supply.

The director of inspections shall inspect the installation of, extension to or any alterations in all water service, water supply or water distribution piping system in all buildings, structures and premises in the city or outside the city of the property is connected to the City of Minneapolis water supply system. The officers and employees of the department of inspections and the waterworks division shall have free entry and access to any building, structure or premises, or part thereof, whether complete or in the process of erection, for the purpose of determining whether the provisions of this article are complied with. The city may shut off the water supply to any property where the owner has refused to give access to the affected property. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.020; 98-Or-135, § 10, 11-13-98)

### 509.1190. - Permits required.

No person shall install in any building or structure any pipe or pipes or systems of piping which receive service from the waterworks system, or any private source, nor make any alteration in or addition, replacement or extension to any existing pipe or system of piping in any building or structure until such person shall have made application to the department of inspections for permission for such installation,

[^p1240-2]: Footnotes: --- (2) --- Editor's note—It should be noted that Ord. No. 98-Or-133, § 1, adopted Nov. 13, 1998, repealed Arts. V—VII of this chapter; Ord. No. 98-Or-134, § 1, adopted Nov. 13, 1998, added provisions designated as Arts. IV—VIII; and Ord. No. 98-Or-135, §§ 1—40, renumbered Arts. VIII—X as IX—XI and amended various sections therein. See the Code Comparative Table for a detailed analysis of inclusion of said ordinances. Charter reference— Damaging waterworks property, Ch. 9, § 16. State Law reference— Fluoridation required, M.S. § 144.145.
[^p1240-9]: Footnotes: --- (9) --- Editor's note—Ord. No. 98-Or-125, § 8, adopted Nov. 13, 1998, renumbered Art. IX as Art. X. See also the editor's note at Ch. 509.

<!-- page 1241 -->
alteration, addition, replacement or extension. Permits will not be required for the repair of leaks or the replacement of less than ten (10) feet of piping. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.030; 98-Or-135, § 11, 11-13-98)

### 509.1200. - Permit application and fees.

Every application for a permit for the installation in any building or structure of water supply or water distribution pipes or system of piping shall be in writing on printed forms furnished by the department of inspections. The fees for permits shall be in an amount as established in the schedule contained in a separate fee resolution. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.040; 98-Or-135, § 12, 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 79, 11-16-12)

### 509.1210. - Permit not required of refrigeration installers.

No permit shall be required of a person duly licensed by the city as a master refrigeration installer or the holder of a certificate of competency as a journeyman refrigeration installer issued by the city for the disconnecting or reconnecting of refrigeration systems or equipment connected to the water distribution system of any building or structure for the repair or service of such refrigeration systems or equipment. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.050; 98-Or-135, § 13, 11-13-98)

### 509.1220. - Permittee must be master plumber; exceptions.

Except as provided in section 509.1230, no permit shall be issued to any person for the installation, alteration, extension or repair of any system of water supply piping in connection with any plumbing system in any building, structure or premises unless such person is duly licensed and bonded by the city as a qualified master plumber.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code of Ordinances to the contrary and where permitted by state law, permits may be issued to make repairs, additions, replacements and alterations to any plumbing or drainage work of any single-family dwelling structure used exclusively for living purposes or any accessory buildings thereto provided that all such work in connection therewith shall be performed only by the person who is the bona fide owner and occupant of such dwelling as his residence or a member of said owner-occupant's immediate family as herein defined. "Immediate family" includes only a parent, children by birth or adoption and said children's spouse. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.060; 98-Or-135, § 14, 11-13-98)

**Cross reference—** Inquiry as to qualifications of owner or occupant applying for permit under this article and authority of director of inspections to refuse issuance of such permit if applicant not qualified, § 89.30.

### 509.1230. - Permits to refrigeration installers and steam and hot water installers for limited purposes.

Permits shall also be issued to persons duly licensed and bonded by the city as qualified:

<!-- page 1242 -->
(a) Master refrigeration installers for the installation, alteration, extension or repair of any condenser or cooling water piping to refrigeration systems or equipment from an existing opening in the water distribution piping system of any building or structure; and

(b) Master steam and hot water heating installers for the installation, alteration, extension or repair of water piping to steam or hot water heating systems, steam piping systems or cooling piping and equipment from an existing opening in the water distribution piping system of any building or structure. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.070; 98-Or-135, § 15, 11-13-98)

### 509.1240. - Connection to another water system.

If a system of water supply, whether inside or outside of any building or structure, is supplied with water from any source other than the city water supply, the system shall be kept entirely separated from the city supplied water system. Any fire protection system supplied with water from the city water service shall be supplied exclusively with the city's water service. No connection shall be allowed with any other system drawing its supply from any other source where the city water supply may be subject to contamination from the other source. No connection shall be made at any time between the fire service pipe system and the regular water supply to the premises, unless all connections shall have been approved by the water treatment and distribution services division. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.080; 98-Or-135, § 16, 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 80, 11-16-12)

### 509.1250. - Separation from connected system.

Wherever physical connection or cross connection between the city water system and any other water system is found to exist, the Director of Minneapolis Water Treatment and Distribution Services Division and the owner shall be notified; and unless the owner removes the connection or cross connection within ten (10) days, the director shall cause the water to be physically disconnected in the street and to remain disconnected until the separation of the system is effected. The director may act as necessary to protect public health. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.090; 98-Or-135, § 17, 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 81, 11-16-12)

### 509.1260. - Delivery to common tanks.

Where the city water supply is delivered to a tank which is also supplied with water from a source other than the Minneapolis Waterworks, the tank shall be open to atmospheric pressure and the city water shall be discharged by a separate overhead pipe terminating in an opening at least six (6) inches, or two (2) times the diameter of the pipe, whichever is the greater, above the top or rim of the tank and under any condition shall be sufficiently high to prevent back siphoning. Such tanks shall not be located where they are subject to flooding. Plans and specifications for such an installation shall be approved in writing by the director of the waterworks and the department of inspections before such work begins, and the installation shall be subject to the city plumbing inspector's inspection and approval before city water will be connected. All such

<!-- page 1243 -->
nonpressure potable water supply tanks shall be properly covered to prevent entrance of foreign material into the water supply. Soil or waste lines shall not be permitted to pass directly over such tanks or over manholes in pressure tanks. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.100; 98-Or-135, § 18, 11-13-98)

### 509.1270. - Direct connection of system to various fixtures and appliances.

No pipe or system of piping which receives its supply from the Minneapolis Waterworks System or any other potable water shall be directly connected to any processing tank, vat, mixer, cooker or washer, pump appliance, or equipment used for storing, holding or conveying fluids or materials or for manufacturing or food processing, or washing purposes. Such appliance and equipment shall be supplied from the Minneapolis Water System through an open funnel connection or from a tank supplied with city water admitted to such tank through a pipe terminating not less than six (6) inches above the top or rim of such tank; or through a pipe protected by an approved vacuum breaker; or by any other method acceptable to the department of inspections. No pipe or system of piping in any building or structure, or premises which receives its supply from the Minneapolis Waterworks System shall be directly connected to any device, appliance or apparatus in which such water supply is used to provide power through a water jet or other device to create vacuum with which to operate any cellar drain, ejector, cleaner, sweeper, conveyor or washer of any kind or description. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.110; 98-Or-135, § 19, 11-13-98)

### 509.1280. - Secondary water.

Secondary water is any water from a system of water pipes or piping which receives its water supply from rivers, cistern or any groundwater or rainwater reservoir; the secondary water is also water from the mains of the Minneapolis Water Treatment and Distribution Services System which has been used for any purpose within any building, structure or premises which has been discharged from any type of condenser coils or cooling system, hydraulic lifts, boilers, linotype machines, die casting machines or apparatus or which has been stored in such a manner as to expose it to possible contamination. No secondary water shall in any way be piped or conveyed into the water supply system of any building, structure or premises to become a part of or mixed with the fresh water supply from the mains of the Minneapolis Water Treatment and Distribution Services System. No pipe or other conduit which conveys secondary water shall be cross connected to the potable water system. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.120; 98-Or-135, § 20, 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 82, 11-16-12)

### 509.1290. - Compliance with plumbing code.

All materials and methods of installation for the water supply system shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Minnesota Plumbing Code. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.130; 98-Or-135, § 21, 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 83, 11-16-12)

**Cross reference—** Plumbing code, Ch. 101.

<!-- page 1244 -->
### 509.1300. - Hot water relief valves.

All equipment for heating and storage of hot water for domestic or commercial purposes, when installed, repaired, relocated, replaced or reconnected, shall be equipped with a listed and approved relief valve.

All direct fired storage water heaters, electric storage water heaters and hot water storage tanks, shall be provided with a combination temperature and pressure relief valve, or a separate pressure relief valve and a separate temperature relief valve. The temperature relief element shall be of the full automatic reseating type with test lever, be factory adjusted to open for relief of hot water from the system at or before the maximum system temperature reaches two hundred ten (210) degrees Fahrenheit. It shall have a relieving capacity equal to or greater than, the heater Btu input rating.

All combined temperature and pressure relief valves and all temperature only relief valves shall be installed with the temperature sensing element immersed in the hottest water, within the upper six (6) inches of the tank. Valves without extended temperature sensing elements shall only be installed directly in a tank tapping in the upper six (6) inches of the tank.

The pressure relief element shall be of the direct acting spring loaded type with test lever. It shall be set to start opening at a pressure not exceeding the working pressure of the tank or heater and shall have a capacity which will limit the pressure rise to not over ten (10) percent of its set pressure. Pressure relief valves may be installed directly in a tank tapping in the top of the tank or heater or may be installed in either the hot or cold water line, as near as possible to the tank or heater.

Relief valves shall have not less than three-fourths-inch inlet and outlet connections when used with water heating equipment having an input of fifteen thousand (15,000) Btu or more. (Code 1960, As Amend., §§ 608.150, 608.160; 98-Or-135, § 22[^p1244-22], 11-13-98)

### 509.1310. - Storage tanks.

The engineering standards of boilers and pressure vessels for use in any building or structure using water supplied by the Minneapolis Water Treatment and Distribution Services Division, shall be that established by the current edition of the construction, operation and care of, in-service inspection and testing, and controls and safety devices codes of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and amendments thereto. (98-Or-135, § 23[^p1244-23], 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 84, 11-16-12)

### 509.1320. - Tankless heaters.

All indirect heaters, instantaneous heaters, and tankless heaters shall be provided with a pressure relief valve. Each pressure relief valve shall have the respective features and be installed as described in section 509.1300. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.170; 98-Or-135, § 24[^p1244-24], 11-13-98)

### 509.1330. - Relief valve drain.

[^p1244-22]: 22
[^p1244-23]: 23
[^p1244-24]: 24

<!-- page 1245 -->
All temperature and pressure relief valves shall have a drain or discharge pipe connected same size as the discharge opening. It shall terminate atmospherically with an unthreaded end, not more than eighteen (18) inches above the floor in a place that will not harm persons or property. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.180; 98-Or-135, § 25, 11-13-98)

### 509.1340. - Marking, approval of relief valves.

Relief valves shall be clearly marked with the following information: Manufacturer's name, type and model number of the device, the set opening temperature, the set opening pressure and the Btu relieving capacity of the valve.

All relief valves shall be certified or listed by one (1) or more of the following organizations: American Gas Association, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, or other testing agency approved by the department of inspections. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.199; 98-Or-135, § 26, 11-13-98)

### 509.1350. - Inspection and tests.

The plumber shall notify the department of inspections whenever the water distribution system for which a permit has been issued is ready for inspection and test by registering the number of the permit and the location of the work in the register book. The register book is kept for that purpose in the office of the director of inspections. The entire water distribution system shall be tested in the presence of the plumbing inspector under a water or air pressure not less than the working pressure under which it is to be used, and found to be perfectly tight and installed in accordance with provisions of this article. (Code 1960, As Amend., §§ 608.200, 608.320; 98-Or-135, § 27, 11-13-98)

### 509.1360. - Sill cocks.

Each sill cock shall have a separate accessible stop and waste valve. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.230; 98-Or-135, § 28, 11-13-98)

### 509.1370. - Drain cocks.

All storage tanks shall be equipped with drain cocks with minimum diameter of one-half (½) inch. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.240; 98-Or-135, § 29, 11-13-98)

### 509.1380. - Materials for water pipe.

Water pipe and fittings shall be of brass, copper, cast iron, galvanized wrought iron or steel. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.250; 98-Or-135, § 30, 11-13-98)

### 509.1390. - Screwed joints.

<!-- page 1246 -->
All screw joints shall be American Standard screw joints and all burrs or cutting shall be removed and the end thoroughly reamed before the joints are made up. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.260; 98-Or-135, § 31, 11-13-98)

### 509.1400. - Copper tube.

Copper tube for water distribution shall conform to American Society for Testing Materials "Standard Specification for Copper Water Tube" (Serial designation B 88-85). Copper tube for water distribution piping above ground shall have a weight of not less than that of copper water tube Type L. Copper tube for water distribution underground piping shall have a weight of not less than that of copper water tube Type K. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.270; 98-Or-135, § 32, 11-13-98)

### 509.1410. - Marking copper tube for identification.

Copper tube shall be marked for identification in accordance with the following standards:

Standard ink colors shall be used as follows: Type K, green; Type L, blue. Color marking shall not be less than one-fourth (¼) inch in width and shall be continuous for the full length of the tube.

Incised marking, as required in American Society for Testing Materials "Standard Specification for Copper Water Tube" (Serial designation B 88-85) shall be retained in addition to color marking. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.280; 98-Or-135, § 33, 11-13-98)

### 509.1420. - Soldering or sweating.

Soldering or sweat joints for copper tubing shall be made with approved fittings as herein listed. Surfaces to be soldered or sweated shall be mechanically cleaned bright. The joints shall be properly fluxed with noncorrosive flux and made with approved solder. Joints in copper tubing shall be made by the appropriate use of approved brass or copper fittings, properly sweated, soldered or brazed together. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.290; 98-Or-135, § 34, 11-13-98)

### 509.1430. - Flared joints.

Flared joints for soft copper water tubing shall be made with fittings meeting the standards in section 509.1440. The tubing shall be reamed and expanded with a proper tool; provided, however, all concealed tubing shall be soldered or brazed. (Code 1960 As Amend., § 608.300; 98-Or-135, § 35, 11-13-98)

### 509.1440. - Copper fittings standards.

Standards for copper fittings shall be as follows:

Copper Brass Solder Joint Fittings—American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B 16.18-1950.

<!-- page 1247 -->
Wrought Copper Solder Joint Fittings—American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B 16.22-1951.

Brass Fittings for Flared Copper Tube—American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B 16.25-1958.
(Code 1960, As Amend., § 608.310; 98-Or-135, § 36, 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 85, 11-16-12)

# ARTICLE XI. - SPRINKLING DURING SHORTAGES[^p1247-10]

Footnotes:
--- (10) ---
Editor's note—Ord. No. 98-Or-135, § 37, adopted Nov. 13, 1998, renumbered Art. X as Art. XI. See also the editor's note at Ch. 509.

### 509.1470. - Water use limited during emergency period.

No person shall draw or use water from the city water mains or the city water distribution system other than as permitted by the declaration of emergency during any period of emergency caused by shortage of water supply or lowering of water pressure in the water mains of the city. (77-Or-070, § 1, 4-7-77; 98-Or-135, § 38, 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 86, 11-16-12)

### 509.1480. - Declaration of emergency.

The city engineer or the appointed representative of the city engineer shall declare the existence of such an emergency as and when it may become necessary, shall determine the period of such an emergency and the termination thereof, shall decide the daily hours of restriction, the method of restriction, and shall decide upon the proper notification to customers of such restrictions. (77-Or-070, § 2, 4-7-77; Pet. No. 251069, § 26, 12-15-89; 98-Or-135, § 39, 11-13-98)

### 509.1490. - Administrative fine.

For a first violation of the declaration of emergency, the occupant of the premises or the owner thereof will receive a warning of the offense. Subsequent violations of the declaration of emergency will result in a turnoff of the water supply to the premises. Written notice posted on the premises at the time of the violation will be considered sufficient notice prior to turnoff of the water supply. No water supply which has been turned off because of a violation of this article shall be turned on until an administrative fine in an amount as established in the schedule contained in the rate resolution has been paid to the Minneapolis Water Treatment and Distribution Services Division, together with the regular charge for water service turn off and on. The violation may also be subject to the penalties in Chapter 1 of this Code. (77-Or-070, § 3, 4-7-77; 98-Or-135, § 40, 11-13-98; 2012-Or-076, § 87, 11-16-12)

[^p1247-10]: Footnotes: --- (10) --- Editor's note—Ord. No. 98-Or-135, § 37, adopted Nov. 13, 1998, renumbered Art. X as Art. XI. See also the editor's note at Ch. 509.

<!-- page 1248 -->
# Appendix 11

Implementation Checklist

<!-- page 1249 -->
# Water Supply Plan Checklist

All sections of the plan must be completed in order for the plan to be approved. The following checklist can be used to make sure all elements of the plan have been completed.

### Part 1. Water Supply System Description and Evaluation

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ☑ | Table 1. DNR Water Appropriation Permit Number & Utility Contact Information |
| ☑ | Table 2. Historic Water Demand (Part 1, A) |
| ☑ | Table 1. Large volume users (Part 1, A) |
| ☑ | Table 2. Water treatment capacity and treatment processes (Part 1, B |
| ☑ | Table 3. Storage capacity, as of the end of the last calendar year (Part 1, B) ) & discussion of current and future storage capacity needs |
| ☑ | Table 4. Water sources & status (Part 1, C) & discussion of limitations |
| ☑ | Table 5. Projected annual water demand (Part 1, D) & discussion of water use trends & projection method |
| ☑ | Table 6. Source water quality monitoring (Part 1, E) |
| ☑ | Table 9. Water level data (Part 1, E) |
| ☑ | Table 10. Natural resource impacts (Part 1, E) |
| ☑ | Table 11. Status of Wellhead Protection and Source Water Protection Plans (Part 1, E) |
| ☑ | Table 12. Adequacy of Water Supply System (Part 1, F) |
| ☑ | Table 13. Proposed future installations/sources (Part 1, F) |
| ☑ | Table14. Alternative water sources (Part 1, F) |
| ☑ | Appendix 1: Well records and maintenance summaries |
| ☑ | Appendix 2: Water level monitoring plan |
| ☑ | Appendix 3: Water level graphs for each water supply well |
| ☑ | Appendix 4: Capital Improvement Plan |

### Part 2. Emergency Planning and Response Procedures

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ☑ | Table 15. Emergency response plan contact information (Part 2, A) & Y/N questions |
| ☑ | Table 16. Interconnections with other water supply systems to supply water in an emergency (Part 2, C) & Y/N questions |
| ☑ | Table 17. Utilizing Surface Water as an Alternative Source (Part 2, C) & discussion of additional emergency water provisions |
| ☑ | Table 18. Water use priorities (Part 2, C) |
| ☑ | Table 19. Emergency demand reduction conditions, triggers and actions (Part 2, C) |
| ☑ | Table 20. Plan to Inform Customers Regarding Conservation Requests, Water Use Restrictions, and Suspensions (Part 2, C) & discussion of restriction authority |
| ☑ | Appendix 5: Emergency Telephone List |
| ☑ | Appendix 6: Cooperative Agreements for Emergency Services |
| ☑ | Appendix 7: Municipal Critical Water Deficiency Ordinance |

<!-- page 1250 -->
Instructions 9/30/15

### Part 3. Water Conservation Plan

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ☑ | Table 21. Implementation of previous ten-year Conservation Plan (Part 3, A) & discussion of progress and results |
| ☑ | Table 22. Short and long-term demand reduction conditions, triggers & actions (Part 3, A) |
| ☑ | Y/N & discussion of leak detection monitoring , water audits & water loss (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Table 23. Customer Meters (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Table 24. Water Source Meters (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Y/N & discussion of water use trends in residential GPCD (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Table 25. Strategies and timeframe to reduce residential per capita demand (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Table 26. Strategies and timeframe to reduce institutional, commercial, industrial, and agricultural and non-revenue use demand (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Describe trends in customer use categories (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Calculate ratio of maximum day demand to average day demand (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Table 27. Rate structures for each customer category (add additional rows as needed) |
| ☑ | Table 28. Additional strategies to Reduce Water Use & Support Wellhead Protection (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Discuss how you will track success (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Table 29. Regulations for short-term reductions in demand and long-term improvements in water efficiencies (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Table 30. Retrofitting programs (Part 3, B) |
| ☑ | Table 31. Current and Proposed Education Programs (Part 3, C) and discussion of future education plans |
| ☑ | Appendix 8: Graph showing annual per capita water demand for each customer category during the last ten-years |
| ☑ | Appendix 9: Water Rate Structure |
| ☑ | Appendix 10: Adopted or proposed regulations to reduce demand/improve water efficiency |
| ☑ | Appendix 11: Implementation Checklist |

### Part 4. Items Metropolitan Area Water Suppliers

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ☑ | Table 32. Alternative Approaches (Part IV, D) |
| ☑ | Complete Technical Assistance question |

### Plan Submittal and Adoption

* ☑ Follow MPARS submission guidelines on page 1 of this document (preferred) or
  Mail to: DNR Ecological & Water Resources
  Water Permit Programs Supervisor
  500 Lafayette Road
  St. Paul, MN 55155-4032    Or e-mail to http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/index.html
* ☐ (Metro communities with less than 1,000 people only)
  Follow MPARS submission guidelines on page 1 of this document (preferred) or
  Mail to: Metropolitan Council
  Reviews Coordinator
  390 N Robert St
  St. Paul, MN 55101    Or e-mail to ReviewsCoordinator@metc.state.mn.us

<!-- page 1251 -->
# Appendix J

Comprehensive Plan Amendments

This appendix provides information about the function and process for comprehensive plan amendments and includes a list and map of comprehensive plan amendments.

<!-- page 1252 -->
# COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS

The comprehensive plan amendment process is an opportunity for individuals, groups, and the City to propose changes to Minneapolis 2040. A typical application would suggest a change to the City’s future land use and/or built form maps. As such, applicants will generally have a legal or equitable interest in the properties directly impacted by the proposed amendment. The City also retains the right to amend the plan as needed through an internal process, without initiation by an external applicant.

Like many other land use or zoning applications, comprehensive plan amendments require internal City review, public notification, and action by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Comprehensive plan amendments have the additional requirements of stakeholder outreach and engagement, including at least one in-person community meeting hosted by the applicant, and review by the Metropolitan Council. Most comprehensive plan amendments require a minimum of between four and eight months to complete the review process. The comprehensive plan amendment must be fully approved before any other applications or entitlements related to the subject property may move forward.

The following is a map (figure 1) and corresponding list (figure 2) of properties that have had changes in the future land use map and/or built form guidance since the adoption of Minneapolis 2040. Please note that not all properties have been rezoned to reflect the proposed comprehensive plan guidance, as rezoning requires a separate land use application submittal.

<!-- page 1253 -->
<<FIGURE>>

**FIGURE 1: MAP OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 2020 - 2025**

City-wide Amendments:
16 Map Corrections
17 Minimum Height Flexibility

Northside Economic Opportunity Network (NEON) 10
Satori Senior Housing 5
Larson Dental 13
Van Buren St NE 8
The Curve Nordeast 14
1315 ½ University Ave SE 11
The Mix 12
Abbott Northwestern Hospital/Allina Care Pavilion 9
Little Earth Urban Farm 7
Greenway Apartments 2 3
1119 East Lake St 15
Simpson Community Shelter & Apartments 1
Allina Transportation Hub
Alesund 6
Sanctuary Lofts 4

<!-- page 1254 -->
### Appendix J - Comprehensive Plan Amendments

#### FIGURE 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS 2020 - 2023

| Project Name | Address | Existing Future Land Use | Proposed Future Land Use | Existing Built Form Guidance | Proposed Built Form Guidance | City Council Action | Metropolitan Council Action |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (1) Simpson Community Shelter & Apartments | 2734 1ˢᵗ Ave S | Urban Neighborhood | (No change) | Interior 3 | Corridor 6 | Approved on [7/17/20](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2020-00620) | Approved on 8/19/20 |
| | 2740 1ˢᵗ Ave S | | | | | | |
| | 2730 1ˢᵗ Ave S | Urban Neighborhood | (No change) | Interior 3 | Corridor 6 | Approved on [5/26/22](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2022-00366) | Approved on 7/26/22 |
| (2) Allina Transportation Hub | 2837 Chicago Ave | Parks and Open Space | Public, Office, and Institutional | Parks | Transit 10 | Approved on [12/18/20](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2020-01140) | Approved on 1/20/21 |
| | 2855 Chicago Ave | | | | | | |
| | 2830 10ᵗʰ Av S | | | | | | |
| (3) Greenway Apartments | 2837 11ᵗʰ Ave S | Urban Neighborhood | (No change) | Interior 3 | Corridor 6 | Approved on [6/17/21](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2021-00609) | Approved on 8/16/21 |
| | 2839 11ᵗʰ Ave S | Production Mixed Use | Urban Neighborhood | Interior 3 | Corridor 6 | Approved on [6/17/21](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2021-00609) | Approved on 8/16/21 |
| | 2843 11ᵗʰ Ave S | Urban Neighborhood | (No change) | Interior 3 | Corridor 6 | Approved on [6/17/21](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2021-00609) | Approved on 8/16/21 |
| | 2834 12ᵗʰ Ave S | | | | | | |
| | 2836 12ᵗʰ Ave S | | | | | | |
| | 2840 12ᵗʰ Ave S | | | | | | |
| (4) Sanctuary Lofts | 3225 E Minnehaha Pkwy | Urban Neighborhood | (No change) | Interior 1 | Interior 2 | Approved on 8/6/21 | Approved on 9/28/21 |
| (5) Satori Senior Housing | 1823 Bryant Ave N | Urban Neighborhood | (No change) | Interior 3 | Corridor 6 | Approved on 9/8/22 | Approved on 10/10/22 |
| | 1827 Bryant Ave N | | | | | | |
| | 1831 Bryant Ave N | | | | | | |
| | 1835 Bryant Ave N | | | | | | |
| | 1839 Bryant Ave N | | | | | | |
| (6) Alesund | 3554 Girard Ave S | Urban Neighborhood | (No change) | Interior 2 | Corridor 4 | Approved on 9/8/22 | Approved on 10/10/22 |

<!-- page 1255 -->
# Appendix J - Comprehensive Plan Amendments

| Project Name | Address | Existing Future Land Use | Proposed Future Land Use | Existing Built Form Guidance | Proposed Built Form Guidance | City Council Action | Metropolitan Council Action |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (7) Little Earth Urban Farm | 1924 E 26^th St | Urban Neighborhood | Production Mixed Use | Interior 3 | (No change) | Approved on 10/6/22 | Approved on 11/18/22 |
| (8) Van Buren St NE | 625 Van Buren St NE | Urban Neighborhood | (No change) | Corridor 6 | Interior 3 | Approved on 1/12/23 | Approved on 2/21/23 |
| | 629 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 641 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 643 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 649 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 653 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 655 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 659 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 705 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 711 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 715 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 719 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 723 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 727 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 733 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 737 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 741 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 747 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 751 Van Buren St NE | | | | | | |
| | 901 Summer St NE | | | | | | |

<!-- page 1256 -->
### Appendix J - Comprehensive Plan Amendments

| Project Name | Address | Existing Future Land Use | Proposed Future Land Use | Existing Built Form Guidance | Proposed Built Form Guidance | City Council Action | Metropolitan Council Action |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (9) Abbott Northwestern Hospital/Allina Care Pavilion | 800 28[^th] St E | Public, Office, Institutional | (No change) | Corridor 6 | Transit 10 | Approved on 1/12/23 | Approved on 2/13/23 |
| | 921 27[^th] St E | | | | | | |
| | 2741 10[^th] Ave S | | | | | | |
| | 2742 10[^th] Ave S | | | | | | |
| | 924 28[^th] St E | | | | | | |
| | 916 28[^th] St E | | | | | | |
| | 2753 Chicago Ave | | | | | | |
| (10) Northside Economic Opportunity Network (NEON) | 2110 23[^rd] Ave N | Urban Neighborhood | Community Mixed Use | Interior 3 | Corridor 6 | Approved on 8/17/23 | Approved on 9/20/23 |
| | 2114 23[^rd] Ave N | | | | | | |
| (11) 1315 ½ University Ave SE | 1315 ½ University Ave SE (amendment only affects a portion, see legal) | Transportation | Transportation | Corridor Mixed Use | Corridor 6 | Approved on 3/7/24 | Approved on 4/3/24 |
| | | Transportation | Community Mixed Use | Transportation | Corridor 6 | Approved on 3/7/24 and on 6/27/24 | Approved on 4/3/24 and on 7/22/24 |
| (12) The Mix | 1027 Essex St SE | Transportation | Community Mixed Use | Transportation | Transit 30 | Approved on 9/19/24 | Approved on 10/17/24 |
| (13) Larson Dental | 1626 Washington St NE | Urban Neighborhood | Neighborhood Mixed Use | (No change) | (No change) | Approved on 10/17/24 | Approved on 11/14/24 |
| | 1628 Washington St NE | | | | | | |
| (14) The Curve Nordeast | 1501 Johnson St NE | Corridor Mixed Use | (No change) | Transit 10 | Corridor 4 | Approved on 5/15/25 | Approved on 07/30/25 |
| (15) 1119 East Lake St | 3010 12th Ave S | Urban Neighborhood | Corridor Mixed Use | Interior 3 | Corridor 6 | Approved on 5/15/25 | Approved on 06/11/25 |
| | 3016 12th Ave S | | | | | | |
| | 3020 12th Ave S | | | | | | |
| (16) Map Corrections | Multiple; refer to legislative file | | | | | Approved on 6/5/25 | Approved on 7/30/25 |

<!-- page 1257 -->
# Appendix J - Comprehensive Plan Amendments

| | | | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| (17) Minimum Height Flexibility | Citywide; refer to legislative file | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Approved on 9/17/25 | Approved on 10/31/25 |