HomeMy WebLinkAbout(1) Water QualityWATER
QUALITY
Surface Water Management
To: St. Joseph Planning Commission and Cynthia Smith-Strack
From: Ellen Wahlstrom, St. Joseph resident , so9 ~ t~oN, M^~ sG3~'y
Re: Surface Water Management, 2008 Comprehension Plan references
Date: November 12, 2008
1. Surface Water Management Plan
• Chap. 2, Physical Setting, Sec VI A, para.4, p. l 6 reads: "The city has
approved a stor[r- water management plan." Chap.4, Land Use, Sec. VIII,
para.2, p.15 reads: The city of St Joseph has not adopted a surface water
management plan." What aze the differences in these plans and why can
we not have a surface water management plane
• In the 2002 Comp Plan, Chap. 12, p.6, in the Recommendations, it is
written that the city should consider including the cost for prepazation of a
surface water management plan, etc. In the 2008 Comp Plan, Chap. 4, p.6,
V. Surface Water Management, para. 3, it is stated to protect and
perpetuate the City's natural resource,it is recommended the city adopt a
comprehensive surface water management plan. Implementing funding
sources and authorizing the development of the plan rests with the city
council.etc. If it is now 6 years layer and we are no closer to a SWMP.It
seems the language should be "the city adopt" rather than "
recommended".
• The Comprehension Plan acknowledges that the ground water in St.
Joseph is highly susceptible to contamination and that the Sauk River and
the Watab River are impaired (Chap. 2, Physical Setting, bullet 3. p.5,
MPCA) The Sauk River is listed for fecal coliform, polychlorinated
biphenyls(PBCs) and turbidity. The S. Fork of Watab is listed for
mercury. It would seem if these areas are to be a pazk area and
developments, a SWMP should have been in place many years aga and
should be put in place now.
2. Storm Water Management Plan
• For examples cited above and future growth and development plans, the
storm water issues seem to be falling into the area of Federal and State
regulations. In the "Consultant Comments" given by Cynthia (accessed on
the city website) that topic has been addressed on p. 20- 22, VII: Surface
Water Management with her response. This appears to be needed to be
incorporated into our storm water management.
,~`' • To quote Jaques Cousteau, " We forget that the water cycle and the life
cycle are one" and the hydrological systems are what enable the water cycle
s
to give us our life cycle. We haven't even addressed the hydrological system
and how that too must be a part of how we move forward with growth and
development. In Chap. 2, p.15, E: Local Hydrological Cycle has a brief but
very well done~~Q on on the hydrological cycle with a fig. 2.11 illustrating
this concept. Can a reference to the hydrological system besides the one
cited be pointed out in the goals, objectives or recommendations?
• The challenge. facing future growth and development planning is that the
environmental landscape is changing for all of us and we need to work
together to find the best designs to meet these future development and
environmental challenges.
~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~
.~
To: City of St. Joseph Planning Commission and Cynthia
MDG, Inc.
From: Margy Hughes
128 Able Ct.
St. Joseph, MN 56374
Re: Public hearing on St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan, 2008 revision
Date: November 12, 2008
Recommendations relative to natural resources
Chp. 2, Physical Setting, Section XI. , p.26, Natural Resources Goals, Objectives
and Policies
Goal # 1: Retain Quality of Life Inherent in the Quality and Quantity of Natural
Resources
Amend # 8 and # 9 as follows:
Objective A; Policy/Recommendations:
8. The C' d maintain~gstablished buffer zones" adjacent to
high va ue wetlands.
The buffer zones should be kept in a natural state.
9. The City should revise shoreland standards to reflect altemative
shoreland standards implemented in several North Central
Minnesota Counties.
Amsnd # 2, 3, and 4 to read as follows:
Objective B, Policy/Recommendations #2, 3, 4
2. -The City should require appropriate erosion controls during
construction and enforce them through developers' agreements
andlor onsite inspections.
3. The City should comalete a natural resources inventory and
_ assessment (NRIA) to establish a ariority listing of
environmentally significant or sensitive areas and in order to
4~~at monitor, preserve, enhance and protect these resources.
~!:. .
~:.~;,~.: 4. The City should evaluate'the impact of storm water runoff on
~~~ ~:, surface water in the City, respective of growth areas and
~~,~.::
~~°R'` encourage the development and use of alternative
management toots such- as rain wardens and other
~~~s ,
..
~'
~~:~:
. may:
~.a
~`.
'_; ~.
~4
-,:.7Y~~~ ~ ,
~', ~ "
~ i+,i
~~~. ,
s
' +:
~~
~~ 1
•'.f•..~#.~
}"', •kM
• ,M4~.
z * .
ti
~~ ~
~R {.
t'..
~('
~ ~,~
{ ,
.~,.s,,.
~:+'
':r,,
emerging management tools.
t. ask that:these recommendations be submitted as part of the. city's public
records.
DESIGN FOR HEALTH
University of Minnesota I July 2007
•
Planning Information Sheet:
Influencing Water Quality
with Comprehensive
Planning and Ordinances
•
Version 2.0
DESIGN FOR HEALTH is a collaboration between the University of Minnesota and
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota that serves to bridge the gap between the
emerging research base on community design and healthy living with the every-day
realities of local government planning.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA •
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
Design for Health
www.designforhealth.vet
O 2007
University of Minnesota
Permission is granted for nonprofit education purposes
for reproduction of all or part of written material or images,
except that reprinted with permission from other sources.
Acknowledgment is required and the Design for Health
project requests two copies of any material thus produced.
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy
that all persons shall have equal access to its programs,
facilities, and employment without regard to race, color,
creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status,
disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual
orientation.
Design for Health is collaboration between the University of
Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.
The following people were involved in the development of
the Information Sheet Series:
Series Editor: Dr. Carissa Schively
Contributors: Dr. Ann Forsyth, Dr. Kevin Krizek, Dr. Carissa
Schively, Laura Baum, Amanda Johnson, Aly Pennucci
Copy Editor: Bonnie Hayskar
Layout Designers: Anna Christiansen, Tom Hilde, Kristin
Raab, Jorge Salcedo, Katie Thering, Luke Van Sistine
Website Managers: Whitney Parks, Joanne Richardson
Suggested Citation: Design for Health. 2007. Planning
Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with
Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances. Version 2.0.
www, designforhealth, net
•
C7
•
Design for Health 2 CINIVERSITY tJF )1~fNN5OTA
www.designforhealth.net
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
Overview
Design for Health's Planning Information Sheets
series provides planners with useful informatian
about opportunities to address important
health issues through the comprehensive
planning process and plan implementation.
The series addresses a range of health issues
that are relevant to many communities and can
be efficiently and effectively integrated into
local plans and policies. This information sheet
provides insights for planners in understanding
how water quality relates to health and points
to innovative approaches to planning for water
quality.
Key Points
• Most water-quality research focuses on
ecological issues; as a result, the corresponding
thresholds and planning strategies do not
prioritize human health. In other words,.
what's good for the environment may not
actually be what's good tof- human health.
While they are interconnected, the Design for
Health project focuses specifically on the link
between ~-eater duality and human health, as
opposed to looking at ecological issues. Two
issues are key: access to clean drinking water
and the ability to use streams, lakes and rivers
for recreational. purposes, such as swimming
and fishing.
• Federal and state regulations have been.
effective in managing pollution problems
from point sources. Agencies at all levels of
government, however, remain. concerned
about nonpoint sources, such as agrict>Itural
and urban stormwater runoff, where land=
use planning and design decisions play an
important role.
• A key issue area that planners often consider
is controlling the allowable amount of
impervious surface. Paved surfaces and
.buildings reduce natural filtration and
exacerbate runoff, which carries waste,
fertilizer, sediment, and other pollutants
directly or indirectly into surface and ground
waters. While a primary focus is arl the
ecological impacts of runoff, it can also lead
to health problems for humans, such as
gastrointestinal iiIness (diarrhea, vornifing,
cramps), pneumonia, increased risk of cancer,
and other health concerns (EPA 2006c). Soil-
runoff, for example, can. lead to higher levels.
of turbidity, which is "associated with higher
levels of disease-causing microorganisms; uch'
as viruses, parasites and some bacteria" (EPA
2006c).
• Research which focz~ses mostly on stream
'.health as opposed to human health, shows
that high levels of impervious surface leads
to stream degradation; however, there are no
conclusive thresholds, because there are tao
many variables to consider (Schueler 1995).
One variable is whether or not a buffering
system is in place. Here, research coizsistently
supports a threshold of 15 to SO m of distance
betweenmczving t-eater and developed sites
(Steedman 1998; Haycock and Museutt 1995;:..
Phillips.1989; Tufford 7.998). It shottld be Hated.
that these buffers are basedon ecological- -
health and not human health; these can
provide. a, preliminary rationale, however,..
when making planning decisions.
• Water quality may be addressed in
'comprehensive planning in many ways.
Appr~~aches include: integrating water
,quality into traditional elements, such as
'environmental resources and conservation,
lnfblic infrastructure, or parks and-open
.'space; developing supplemental plans, such
as design landscape standards or local water-
rnalagement plans; or creating separate
maintenance and management plans fare
specific areas..
•
•
•
Design for Health
www.designforhealth.net
UNIVERSITY OF 1V1ItvDIESflTA
effect on water quality
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
• Specific strategies that planners can. use to
improve human health related to water quality
indude developing water-related landsc~~pe
design standards, creating incentives for
green roots, encouraging rain gardens,
re-working zoning regulations to include
buffer dtresholds, designing ordinance~sthat
encourage pervious pavement, and revising
the development-review process to include an
evaluation of impervious surfaces. While there
may not be direct health impacts associated
with the tools identified in this bullet,
..they fall into three categories: (1) reducil~g_
impervious surface, (2) increasing buffering
and (3) promoting infiltration. These general
approaches are represented in the literature
as contributing to ground-and surface- water
quality.
• Water qualit}~ is not a31 isolated issue; rather, it
is tied to many other health topics covered in
the DFH materials. For more information, see
the table below.
Understanding Water Quality
Planners in transportation, land use, economic
development, neighborhood development, public
works, and parks and recreation make decisions
every day that either directly or indirectly affect
water quality. In this context, the Design for
Health team specifically focuses on the link
between water quality and human health in
relation to land-use practices and community
design. Readers interested in other aspects of
water quality can consult numerous sources at
www.design.forhealth.net. We also recommend
the NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal
Officials) Program as a starting point. Its Web site,
nemo.uconn.edu/index.htm, provides a series
of publications that addresses the relationship
between land use and water quality. We focus on
two issue areas: access to clean drinking water
and the ability to use streams, lakes and rivers
.for recreational purposes, such as swimming and.
fishing. These issues are explored through three
themes: polluted run-off, septic systems and
toxins.
•
•
Design for Health Planning Information Sheets addressing Water Quality
DFH Planning Information Topics covered related to ' Link:
Sheet: accessibility:
Influencing Water Quality ^ Polluted. run-off
la~tp //~v~~w.desi~,nforhealth.net/
with Comprehensive ^ Decentralized wastewater
techassistancelwateic~ualilyissue.
Planning and Ordinance treatment systems' htrnl
^ Toxic waste..
Promoting Accessibility ' Multimodal transportation
systems
htt~//v<rwc~~.desi~nforl~eatth.net!
with Comprehensive 'Transit planning techassistance/Accessiblity.htm
Planning and Ordinances ^ Specialized populations
Supporting Physical
httn:i""/v~~vw.desi~~forhealth.
Activity through ^ Pedestrian and bicycle plans 11e~tec,hass~~tanGe/
Comprehensive Planning ^ Community design ~~v4f~alac,tiv~tussue.html
and Ordinances
•
Design for Health 4 1.7NIVER3ITY of Mi1wNESt3TA
www.designforhealth.net
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
Polluted Run-off
As mentioned in the Key Question Series, water
cleanliness is affected. by both. point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Here, we focus primarily
on the relationship between land-use decisions
and nonpoint-source pollution since point
sources-such as factories or sewage treatment
plants-are already regulated through federal
and state standards. While there are certainly
still. point sources polluting waterways, water-
quality assessments now point to nonpoint
sources as the reason why most water-quality
standards are not met (Randolph 2004, 393;
EPA 2006x). Nonpoint-source pollution has x
number of causes. Some problems occur when
rain or irrigation systems overwhelm. the existing
treatment systems. Others are associated with
agricultural nrnoff that collects fertilizers, soil
particles and nutrients. Urban stormwater runoff
is another source of water pollution, since there
is no formal treatment system. As rainwater
washes across impervious surfaces it picks up
pollutants, such as sediment, litter, road salt,
motor oil, pet anal livestock waste, or hazardous
particles from air pollution. These sources
cause pathogens, sediment, debris, and toxic
substances to move into surface- and ground-
water without any natural or artificial filtration
systems. This may lead to health. problems, such
as gastrointestinal illness (diarrhea, vomiting,
nausea, cramps), pneumonia, anemia, circulatory
problems, reproductive d.iffi.culties, kidney
damage, liver problems, nerve damage, increased
blood pressure, increased risks of cancer, and-in
extreme cases-death (EPA 2006c).
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
(e.g. sewage systems, septic systems)
Drinking water can. come from either ground-
water sources (via wells) or surface-water sources
(such as rivers, lakes and streams). Nationally,
most water systems use aground-water source
(80 percent), but most people (66 percent) are
served by a water system that uses surface
water. This is because large metropolitan areas
tend to rely on surface water, whereas small and
rural areas tend to rely on ground. water (EPA.
2006x). On-site wastewater or septic systems
are used by 23 percent of the homes in the
Uiuted States (Randolph 2004, 341). To work
effectively, the systems need appropriate soils,
should be located appropriate distances from
wells and water bodies; and need to be properly
designed, installed and maintained (EPA 2006x).
Other important characteristics are: topography,
surface drainage, vegetation, and proximity to
surface waters, wells, wetlands, .rock outcrops,
and property lines (Randolph 2004, 343).When
these needs are not met, human health suffers.
in 1.996, the EPA estimated that 500 communities
had public-health problems caused by failed
septic systems and. septic systems are listed as
the third most common source of ground-water
contamination (Randolph 2004, 342).
Minnesota, in fact, has one of the highest failure
rates, with 50-70 percent of the systems failing
(Randolph 2004, 343). Decentralized wastewater
treatment systems also cause problems for
surface waters if they are not located properly.
The EPA recommends that in order to enhance
management of decentralized wastewater
treatment systems, state and local governments
should develop a well thought-out strategy
that considers a number of factors, including
design options, site conditions, operation anal
maintenance requirements, periodic inspections,
monitoring, and financial support (EPA 2005, 4).
In 2005, the EPA published a handbook entitled,
Managing Onsite and Clustered Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Systems: An Introduction
to Management Tools and Information for
Implementing EPA's Management Guidelines.
It provides helpful information about how to
do initial scoping, set goals and objectives,
identify stakeholders, convene public meetings,
assess and analyze existing conditions, develop
•
•
•
Design for Health 5
www.d esignforhealth. net
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
New kinds of porous or pervious pavers can allow water to
inflitrate into the soil while still supporting heavy use
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
a management program, and set up evaluation
strategies. It offers a series of community
examples related. to implementation, program
authority, financing, and program evaluation.
about NPDES, visit cfpub.epa.gov/dpdes/index.
cfm. The site also lists a variety of case studies
about how states are dealing with water-quality
issues in relation to human health.
•
Toxic Wastes
Toxic wastes from point and nonpoint sources
are detrimental to human. health.. They originate
from industrial, commercial, and agricultural
areas anal can pollute surface water and ground
water, which. can make drinking water. unhealthy
and make it impossible to safely use surface
waters recreationally for fishing anal swimming
(Design for Health 2007). As authorized by
the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (N.PDES) permit
program regulates point sources that discharge
pollutants into waters of the United States (EPA
2006a). "Individual homes that are connected to
a municipal system, use a septic system or do not
have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES
permit; however, industrial, muncipal and other
facilities must obtain permits if their discharges
go directly to surface waters' (EPA 2006x).
Operators of industrial facilities or sites with
activities included in one of these 11 categories
must obtain coverage under an NPDES industrial
stormwater permit (EPA 2006x):
• Facilities with effluent limitations
• Manufacturing
• Mineral, .metal, oil and gas
• Hazardous waste, treatment, or disposal
facilities
• Landfills
• Recycling facilities
• Steam electric plants
• Transportation facilities
• Treatment works
• Construction activity
• Light industrial activity
In most cases, the NPDES permit program
is administered by authorized states. The
federal and. state regulations do a good job of
monitoring and managing toxins that come from
point sources; however, there are significant
health problems associated with. toxins that
affect human health through nonpoint sources.
Nonpoint sources are addressed above in the
section on polluted runoff. For more information
Planning for Water Quality
There are a variety ofurban-planning and design-
related features that try to mitigate the causes
of. polluted drinking water and bodies of water
through regulations on the use of septic systems,
location of toxic wastes anal other pollutants, and
the level of runoff caused by urban. development.
In the next section, we look at a variety of policy
and implementation strategies that are used to
encourage the link between public health and
water quality.
Polluted ruuoff
Polluted runoff is a complex issue because it is
connected to a much larger conversation. about
watershed management that links environmental-
and human-health concerns. Moreover, research,
which focuses mostly on stream health as
opposed to human health, shows that high levels
of polluted runoff leads to stream degradation
(Scheeler 1995). Even though it is amulti-faceted
issue, we do know that runoff causes problems
for drinking water and for recreational surface
waters; as a result, this section looks at a variety
of ways that communities are handling runoff
issues.
•
•
Design for Health 6 UNiVER51TY OF MINNESt1TA
www.designforhaalth.vet
High levels of nutrients can affect the quality of water in
lakes and streams
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
In its municipal code, the City of Santa Monica,
California, includes a chapter on urban-runoff
pollution, where the objective is to reduce both
runoff volume and contamination from existing
and future residential and non-residential
development. Although polluted runoff is a
regional planning issue, in that runoff from
multiple southern California communities affects
water quality in the Santa Monica Bay, policies
at the local, regional and state level all contribute
to improving water quality. The City of Santa
Monica is particularly concerned with the runoff
that enters the streets and evenhially the Santa
Monica Bay beaches through the storm drains.
Each new development application must submit
an Urban Runoff M. itigation. Plan that "shall
infiltrate or treat projected runoff for the new
development by an amount equal to or greater
than the volume of runoff produced from a storm
event through incorporation of design elements"
(City of Santa Monica No Date). The code also
includes requirements for construction sites,
"good housekeeping requirements" and a list of
goals that the design strategies should achieve.
They include:
• Increase permeable areas:
- Install rain gutters and orient them towards
permeable surfaces rather than driveways
or nonperm.eable surfaces so that runoff will
penetrate into the ground instead of flowing
offsite,
-Modify grades of property to divert flow to
permeable areas and to minimize the amount
of stormwater leaving the property,
-Use sed.i.ment traps to intercept nmoff .from
drainage areas and hold yr slowly release the
runoff, with sediments held in the trap for
later removal,
-Design curbs, berms or the Like so as to avoid
isolation of permeable yr landscaped areas;
• Reduce parking lot pollution:
- AlI parking lots are regtured to have the
capability to contain. one inch of precipitation
in a 24-hour period. Options to meet this
requirement include use of green strip filters
and porous pavement to capture and percolate
runoff where possible, and use of oil and water
separators or clarifiers to remove petroleum-
based contaminants and other pollutants
which are likely to accumulate,
-Maximize the percentage of permeable
surfaces and green space to allow more
percolation of runoff into the ground. The use
of porous materials for or near walkways will.
increase the amount of runoff seepage into the
ground,
- Use natural drainage, detention ponds or
infiltration pits so that runoff. may collect anal
seep into the ground and reduce or prevent
off-site flows,
-Divert and catch runoff through the use of
swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds
and French drains,
-Construct driveways and. walkways
from porous materials to allow increased
percolation of runoff into the ground;
- Minimize the amount of runoff directed
to impermeable areas and/or maximize
stormwater storage for reuse:
-Direct runoff toward permeable areas and
away from pollutant laden areas such as
par..king lots,
-Construct parking lots from porous materials.
Source: City of Santa Monica no date
New construction projects are also evaluated
under a series of best-management practices
identified within. this code. One example ia1
Article 7 states that, "Runoff, sediment and
construction waste from construction sites
and parking areas shall not leave the site'
(9). Santa Monica is an example of how plan
implementation is being used to regulate
concerns about drinking water and recreational
water.
Design for Health
www.designforhealth.net
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
In Minnesota, the Minneapolis Parks and
Recreation Board releases a water resources
report every year that summarizes its monitoring
program; analyzes every lake, watershed, beach,
river, and golf course within. its jurisdiction; and
offers suggestions for water-quality education.
The report is a comprehensive technical reference
and it is used by the City of Minneapolis .in
the development of its comprehensive plan.
The monitoring section of the report includes
information about the Lake Aesthetic and.
User Recreation Index (LAURI), which gives
recreational users an easy-to-understand guide
about whether or not they should use the lakes
for fishing and/or swimming. The four categories
include: aesthetic considerations (color and
odor of water, garbage and debris}, recreational
interferences (aquatic plants), environmental
quality (water clarity), and public health (E.
coli measured at public swimming beaches)
(Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2004,
11). The latter determines whether or not there
is health risk present for swimmers, because
this weekly testing of E.coli is a sign of fecal
contamination that often comes from runoff
problems (pet waste, water fowl, etc.) and it leads
to an increased risk of gastrointestinal illness.
This report is particularly useful, because it deals
specifically with concerns about contaminated
water that make it difficult for residents of
Minneapolis to use its lakes, streams and rivers
for recreational. purposes.
The Local Surface Water Management Plan for
the City of Minneapolis is a policy tool designed
to combine management systems for sanitary
sewers, storm drains and surface waters. The
plan, which must also be approved by the
regional governing body and the watershed
district, contains sections on trends in water-
resource management, categorization of systems,
identification of regulatory responsibilities,
goals and policies, assessment and inventory
of resources, and plan implementation-all of
which inform the City on how to balance aging
infrastructure and regulatory mandates in order
to encourage stormwater infiltration and. reduce
runoff. (City o.f Minneapolis 2006, 6). The plan. has
been implemented through various City actions.
The Public Works Department within the City of.
Minneapolis, for example, recently put in 90 grit
chambers that are stormwater drainage system
structures that remove sediment, trash and debris
from storm runoff, so they are not deposited in.
receiving surface waters. "They were essentially
large underground cement boxes with baffles,
which allowed water to slow down. Once the
process slows down, the sediments and heavier
materials settle to the bottom of the box below
the pipe entrance and exit" (City of Minneapolis
2006). This is a project that is being collaborated
on by both th.e Public Works Department and the
Parks and Recreation Board to help monitor the
effectives of the chamber, since it stops working
once it is full. These have typically been used
on onsite public facilities, and the goal is to
eventually make it a requirement for all private
construction.
As mentioned previously, research has been
conducted on the role that vegetated buffers
can. play in reducing the negative impacts that
impervious surfaces have on stream health,
which may lead. to better drinking water and
opporhmities to fish and swim. in lakes and
rivers. Communities can either incorporate
buffer thresholds into their existing landscape-
design guidelines or imbed buffer thresholds into
existing water-quality related ordinances. It is
important to note that buffer thresholds to date
focus on ecological-health needs and not human-
health needs. This is not to say that buffers and
landscaping are bad or that they have no impact
on humans-it just means that we don't know
what kind of impacts they do have.
5
Design for Health 8 l.1NIWERSITY OF MINNE5UTA
www.desig nforhealth.n et
Rain gardens, such as this attractive one at Andrew
Riverside lnternatlona! Peace Park, can be integrated into
many paths and yards. Minneapolis
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
Researchers at the University of Georgia
created a model stream-buffer ordinance that
specifies a distance between. m.ovi.n.g water and.
developed land. The purpose of the ordinance is
to protect water supplies, trap other pollutants
in surface runoff, promote bank stabilization,
protect wetlands, etc. The buffer zone restricts
development and allows only limited land uses
through the establishment of an overlay zone.
The zoning language states (Wenger and Fowler
2000, 61):
The Riparian Buffer Zone District (RBZ) is an
overlay zone that encompasses all land within
100 ft [or width defined above] on either side
of all streams, measured as a line extending
from the stream bank. The RBZ must be
maintained in a naturally vegetated state.
There are specific land uses that are prohibited
within this area. They include (61 ): septic tanks,
all types of impervious surfaces, buildings,
landfills, mining, etc. The ordinance also lists
definitions, permitted uses, minor variances,
major variances, and additional water-supply
watershed requirements. It is unclear whether
or not any municipality has used this model
ordinance.
Rain gardens are becoming an increasingly
popular tool for dealing with polluted runoff
that may contaminate drinking water, and i
is in small, vegetated areas where rainwater is
directed to be filtered by plants and soil. "Their
location, size, and effectiveness depend on such
things as the amount of rain that moves from
a house/building, the number and location of
downspouts, soil types and the plants used.
The gardens are practical in landscaped areas
along drives or walks, corner pieces to the
yard and receiving areas for roof downspouts
or sump pump hoses" (City of Maplewood
2006). Communities can take an active part in
the design and development of rain gardens
by offering incentives, technical assistance,
educational materials, etc. Two suburban
communities in Minnesota-Maplewood
anal Burnsville-are practicing this technique
in concentrated areas in both new and old
neighborhoods. Each advocates the use of rain.
gardens to combat polluted runoff from lawn
fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, yard wastes,
sediment, and animal. wastes-all of which seep
into the ground- and. sur..face-water, which. leads
to contaminated drinking water and the inability
to use the lakes and streams for recreational
purposes. Maplewood offers a list of extensive
construction requirements and measurement
methods, as well as other educational materials
to help community members get their bearings.
Burnsville set up a comparison. study to monitor
runoff in two comparable neighborhoods-one
had rain gardens and one did not. One test
showed that the street with gardens contributed
to 90 percent less stormwater to the lake. While
the rain gardens are not listed in zoning or
landscaping ordinances, they are indirectly
related to the comprehensive-plan goals for water
duality.
Pervious surfaces are another way that drinking
water is being treated. Permeable pavements are
surfaces that allow water to pass through voids
in the paving material and/or between paving
units, while providing a stable, load-bearing
surface. There are many types of pervious
pavement, including plastic rings planted with
grass; stone or concrete blocks with pore spaces
backfilled with gravel or sand; porous asphalt;
and porous concrete. Pervious pavement accepts
only precipitation, not stormwater runoff (City
of Portland 2004,13). Many communities are
beginning to incorporate plan implernentaHon
and policy frameworks that include pervious
surfaces. The City of San Antonio, Texas, includes
pervious surfaces within its plan implementation
methods by including it within its parking
and storage standards (Article 5, Division 6).
In its code, it states that vehicle-parking areas
can exceed their maximum number of spaces
permuted if the additional spaces are designed
as pervious pavement. It further identifies
what kind of permeability rating the surface
must have, as well as the necessary soil and
slope conditions. It also includes maintenance
standards by .requiring the pavement to be
"vacuum swept" and washed with ahigh-
pressure hose at least four times a year (City of
San Antonio 2006, 5-196).
Design for Health 9 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
www.designforheatth.net
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
The City of Seattle, Washington, has design
guidelines that describe specifically where
permeable pavers are allowed. This is listed as
a strategy within the environmental element of
its comprehensive plan. The design guidelines
encourage permeable pavement by allowing it to
act as a credit toward flow-control requirements.
The standards list the three main categories
of permeable pavements that are allowed,
"based upon the reservoir base course, which
provides stability for load-bearing surfaces and
underground storage for runoff" (City of Seattle
2005x). They are:
Permeable concrete or permeable asphalt
pavement: similar to standard pavement, but
the fine material (sand and finer) is reduced
or eliminated in the mix. As a result, channels
form between the aggregate in the pavement
surface and allow water to infiltrate.
• Plastic grid systems: comes in rolls that are
covered with soil and grass or gravel. The grid
sections interlock and. are pinned .in place.
• Interlocking pavers: include cast-in-place or
modular pre-cast blocks. The cast-in-place
systems are reinforced concrete made with
reusable forms. Pre-cast systems are either
high-strength cement concrete or plastic
blocks. Both systems have wide joints or
openings that can be filled with soil a.nd grass
or gravel.
Source: City of Seattle 2005a
Seattle limits permeable pavements to non-street
surfaces, such as sidewalks, driveways and
parking pads. The table below outlines which
materials are allowed for each street right-of-
~vay cornponent.The mandatory environmental
element with the City comprehensive plan
focuses more directly on ecological concerns
rather. than human health; however, the chapters
on the nahiral-systems approach, aquatic areas,
climate change, and source control all do affect
human health. One of the policies within the
section on natural systems is to, "Strive to
increase the amount of permeable surface and
vegetative cover in the city in order to mitigate
the heat island effect of developed areas, control
stormwater flows" (City of Seattle 2005b,11).
Seattle is a prime example for showcasing how
policy and plan implementation work together.
The City of Portland, Oregon, in its stormwater
Management Manual, includes a section
entitled, Pervious Pavement Operations and
Maintenance Plan. The manual includes such
topics as t11e required inspection ti.m.eline, how
to treat surface materials, ways to deal with
overflows or emergency spillways, identification
of appropriate vegetation, and how to handle
source control issues. The section on vegetation,
for example, states (City of Portland No date,
10) that, "Vegetation and large shrubs/trees that
limit access or interfere with porous pavement
operation shall be pruned and fallen leaves and
debris from deciduous plant foliage shall be
raked and removed." Portland has also written
Table 1. Permeable Pavements in Street Right-of-Way
Component Des n Guidance.-A roved 11~Iaterials
Driveway, parking pad Parking spaces and driveways, may use the gravel-pave technique,
permeable concrete or permeable asphalt provided the City`s loading
requirements for driveways and'long-term maintenance considerations
are me. t. Refer. to Standard'Plan X30 and'Standard Plan X31 for more
information.
Sidewalk Permeable asphalt and permeable concrete may be used for sidewalks
provided the City's ADAregtiiirements and long-term maintenance
considerations are met..
Pathway Permeable asphalt,_permeable concrete, unit pavers and gravel-pave may',
be used for informal athwa s.
Roadway Roadway pavement hall continue to use standard non-permeable,
materials.
Source: City of Seattle 2005a
Design for Health 10 UIdIYERSITY OF MINNE50TA
www.d asig nforhealth. n et
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
a case study about an example of a permeable-
pavement project on Westmoreland Street. It is a
test to see how well this kind of pavement works
in a street, as opposed to just driveways and
parking lots, by studying durability, maintenance
requirements and drainage capacity (1}. It is
joint pilot project that includes Environmental
Services, Portland. Office of Transportation, and
Portland Water Bureau. These pilot projects are
popping up around the country as communities
are looking for innovative ways to treat human
and ecological health.
While this infornlation sheet focuses specifically
on techniques that local governments can use
to address runoff. issues in their communities,
it should be noted that regional approaches
are available and can be effective in addressing
water quality issues at the watershed scale.
For example, the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Watershed. Model. estimates the sources and
movement of pollutants from various locations
in the watershed. (Koroncai et al. 2003). In order
to reduce pollution, Chesapeake Bay Program
partner communities agreed to cuts in nutrients
and sediment flowing into Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries, accomplished through local
efforts to minimize agricultural runoff, managing
animal waste, controlling erosion and sediment,
buffering and a wide range of other measures
(Chesapeake Bay Program 2007). Another
example is the Minnehaha Creek Watershed.
District in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
As a regulatory agency, the watershed district
has more authority than the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The agency requires permits for many
projects related to erosion. control, floodplain
alteration, wetland protection, dredging,
shoreline improvement, water body crossings,
and stormwater management (Minnehaha Creek.
Watershed District 2007).
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systencs
(e.g. sewage systems, septic systems)
In the EPA handbook on decentralizing
wastewater treatment systems, there are a series
of examples that cover a wide range of topics
in relation. to financing, plan implementation,
stakeholder analysis, public education, etc.
These case studies address the many technical,
financial and participatory components that
need to be addressed to successfully manage
these systems, both from a governmental and an
individual-home level. Three examples of case
studies show how different communities are
dealing with wastewater systems that have been
either polluted or have the potential of polluting
drinking and swimming water:
1. "Because of accelerated development in the
Idaho panhandle and a rapid rise in iutrate
concentrations in the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer,
the Panhandle Health District (PHD), which
covers the state's five northernmost counties,
developed a plan to implement an interim
moratorium on new development served
by conventional septic tank soil-absorption
systems. The high-nitrate problem had been
traced through ground water monitoring to
wastewater systems in densely developed
subdivisions. To gain support for the plan, the
PHD made presentations that documented
the problem and proposed solutions to school,
civic and pmEessional groups. The PHD then
formed an ad hoc citizens' committee to
develop and present suggested changes to the
preliminary policy developed by the PHD. This
committee included representatives from home
builders, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service and
two other affected federal agencies, farmers,
planning boards, the state legislature, the
League of Women Voters, and conservation/
environmental organizations" (11).
2. "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
developed three programs that help finance
onsite systems and management programs. The
loan program provides loans at below-market
rates. Another program provides a tax credit
of up to $4500 over three years to defray the
cost of system repairs for a primary residence.
Finally, the Comprehensive Community Septic
Management Program provides funding for
Long-term community, regional or watershed-
based solutions to system malfunctions in
sensitive environmental areas. Low-interest
rnanage.ment program loans of. up to $100,000
are available" (46).
Design for Health ~1
www.designforhealth.net
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
3. "Fairfax County, Virginia requires septic
tank pumping every five years. System owners
must provide the county health department
with a written notification within 10 days of
the pump-out. A receipt from the pump-out
contractor, who must be licensed to handle
septic-tank residuals, must supplement the
notification" (50).
Source: EPA 2006a
We recommend that communities refer to this
comprehensive handbook when determining how
to handle policy and plan-based implementation
options for treatment systems.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(IvIPCA) monitors the state's individual
sewage-treatment systems (ISTS), which are
known as septic systems as part of the federal
requirements outlined by the EPA.. The 1994
ISTS Act and its supplementary amendments
directly connect public health with water quality
as opposed to focusing solely on environmental
considerations (MPCA 2006). The act requires
that all .new construction and replacement of ISTS
"adequately protect the public health and the
environment" (1994). It also establishes a method
"to replace systems which pose an imminent
threat to public health and safety (10-month
upgrade) and systems that are failing to protect
groundwater (u.pgrade per local requirements)"
(1994).
This rain garden also in Minneapolis, is part of a central open
space in a housing development
As reflected in a passage of the 1994 ISTS Act, the
objectives in regulating sewage treatment are to:
• keep inadequately treated sewage away from
human contact to prevent disease;
• reduce levels of pathogenic bacteria
discharged to the environment;
• reasonably and cost-effectively prevent
ground-water contamination;
• develop clear direction for design,
construction anal maintenance of sewage-
treatment facilities; and
• strive for cost-effective methods of sewage
treatment to maintain or improve property
values.
Source: MPCA 2006, 2
These examples show how the issue of water
quality is not just a local. one, but an. issue that
is coordinated at all levels of government. It
is important to note that these systems are
good ways of managing wastewater if they are
properly designed, built and implemented.. Local
governments can. actively play an important
role in protecting drinking water by setting up
systems to meet these three requirements.
Local plans can deal with decentralized
wastewater treatment systems. For example, the
mid-sized City of Lacey, Washington, located
near Olympia, has integrated language into
its comprehensive plan related to wastewater
systems, including the extension of public
systems and the use of septic tanks. This
language, cited in the City's Wastewater
Comprehensive Plan Update includes:
• Preference normally should be given to
providing adequate public facilities in settled
areas, rather than. extending new services
to sparsely settled or undeveloped areas,
and to serve the incorporated land before
serving unincorporated areas. However,
sewer extension shall be allowed to areas for
purposes of ground water protection, surface
water protection or the correction of identified
existing residenfiial, commercial or industrial
need .for. sewer service.
Design for Health t2 UNIVERSITY OF MiNNESUTA
www.dasignforhealth.vet
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
• Residential and commercial development
utilizing septic tanks .for sewage disposal.
which have sanitary sewer laterals readily
available should be required to hook up to
sanitary sewer when the system fails, needs
replacement or requires major repairs.
• A large portion of the Lacey growth area
is in the designated McAllister Springs
Geologically Sensitive area. Property located
in this area should not develop at densities
greater than one unit per five acres on septic
tanks and drain fields. When such property is
developed at one unit per five acres, it shall be
done so in a clustered manner that will allow
redevelopment at urban densities once sewer
service is made available
Source: City of Lacey, WA 2005
One policy example comes from Bayfield
County, Wisconsin. The county is located on
the edge of Lake Superior, with. a 2000 Census
estimated population of 15,000. The County's
sanitary permit requirements are tied to local soil
conditions, which dictate th.e use of certain. types
of septic systems (e.g. conventional, mound,
holding tank, aerobic treatment system} pending
the results of a soil test.
Toxic Wastes
As indicated earlier, toxic wastes via paint
sources are heavily regulated by federal and
state standards. For more information about
how they are regulated, please visit www.epa.
gov At its Web site, the EPA recommends two
specific examples of ground- and surface-water
protection overlay districts to protect drinlung
water. The ground-water district emphasizes
the connection between land uses and shallow
aquifers, and it lists geographic zones, as well
as what uses are encouraged and prohibited.
Zone 1 (within 1000 feet (304 m) of the public
well supply), for example, is referred to as the
"Drinking Water Critical Impact Zone," and
the encouraged uses are parks, greenways and
publicly-owned recreational. areas. Some of the
prohibited uses include: gas stations, truck/bus
terminals, junkyards, feed operations, storage
tanks, dry cleaners, etc. It also recommends that
abandoned wells should be properly plugged,
so they don't become accidental conduits from
contaminated pollutants that move from surface
water into ground water.
The Reservoir Protection Overlay Zone (RPOZ)
is "intended to ensure the adequate protection
of current or potential public water supply
reservoirs" (EPA 2006b). Rather than focusing
on specific zones, this ordinance focuses on use
regulations; for example, it prohibits storage,
treatment, production, or disposal of federally-
recognized hazardous materials. Like the overlay
zone above, it does not allow dry cleaning,
photo processing, service stations, or junkyards.
This particular cade also lists a series of review
requirements for any site development proposal;
these evaluative measures include:
• preventing nonpoint source pollution to the
maximum extent possible, by taking into
account site conditions, such as slope, soil type
and erosivity, and vegetative cover;
• having sufficient management practices to
remove or neutralize those pollutants that
present a potential impact to the reservoir; and
• minimizing grading and removal of
vegetation at a development and having
erosion- anal sediment-control. measures in.
place and praperly installed.
Source: EPA 2006b
Since point sources are regulated by both policy
and plan. implementation efforts, this means
the conversations now center around nonpoint
sources that harm humans through surface-
and. ground-water contamination. Examples of
how communities are dealing with toxins are
generally listed below in the thematic section
about polluted n~noff.
Final Thoughts
While federally-regulated water-quality
standards were initially put in place to help
human health, they have evolved to include
great ecological protections. As a result, muc11 of
the research today focuses on the link between
environmental concerns and water quality. Here,
our attention is focused on human health in
relation to drinking water and surface waters
used far recreational purposes. We recommend
a series of policy and plan implementation
Design for Health 13
www.dasig nforhealth. net
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESaTA
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
strategies that are mostly focused on polluted
runoff, since most of the themes a.re regulated
from the federal, state and regional levels. It is
important to note that many of these strategies
eve recommend, such as buffering or pervious
surfaces, are used for ecological health and
indirectly for human health. This doesn't mean
that they won't positively affect humans; it just
means that we don't know how much good they
will achtall.y do.
For more information. on the links between public
health and planning, please visit
www.designforhealth.com.
Design for Health t4 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
www.designforhealth.net
Planning Information Sheet: lnfluencing Water Cluality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2007. Reducing
nutrient pollution. http: / / www.chesapeakebay.
net/ restrtn.htm
City of Lacey, Washington. 2005. Wastewater
comprehensive plan. http:/ /www.ci.laceywa.u.s/
pw / wastewater plan/chapter-03.pdf
City of Maplewood, Minnesota. 2006. Rainwater
garden preparation construction requirements.
http:/ /www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/vertical/
Sites / %7BEBA07AA7-C8D5-43B1-A708-
6F4C7A8CC374 j~7D /uploads / °~~7BEDD2394A-
DA48-40ED-8624=EFCD85DDC642%7D.PDF.
City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2006. Storm and
surface water management: Local surface water
management plan. http: / / www.ci.minneapolis.
mn.us / stormwater.
City of Portland, Oregon. No date. Sustainable
stormwater management: Permeable pavement:
Westmoreland pilot project. http:/ /www.
portlandonline.com /shared / cfm /image.
cfm?id=88334.
. 2004. Stormwater management manual:
Chapter 3, pervious pavement operations and
maintenance plan. http:/ /www.portlandonline
com/shared/ cfm / image.cfm?id=55800.
City of San Antonio, Texas. 2006. Unified
Development Code: Article V, Division. 6: Parking
and storage standards. http:/ /epay.sanantonio.
govt dsddocurnentcentral / upload J jan06ord05_
Standards.pdf.
. 2005b. Comprehensive plan:
Environmental element. http://ww~v.seattle.
gov/ DPD/Plan..ning/ Seattle_s_Comprehensive_
Plan/ ComprehensiveI'lan/ default.asp.
Design for Health. 2007. Key Questions:Water
Quality. Version 1.0. www.designforhealth.net
Haycock, N. E., and A. D. Muscutt. 1995/2.
Landscape management strategies for the control
of diffuse pollution. Landscape and Urban
Planning3l (1-3):313-321.
Koroncai, Robert, Lewis Linker, Jeff Sweeney, and
Richard Batiuk. 2003. Setking and allocating the
Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and Sediment
Loads: The collaborative process, technical tools
and innovative approaches. Annapolis, MD: U.S.
EPA Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
http: / /www.chesapeakebay.net/ caploads.htm
Miruleapolis Park and Recreation Board.
2004. Monitor resources report. http: / /www.
minneapolisparks.org /documents /caring/ WQ_
Annual 2004/ chl.pdf.
Mirulehaha Creek Watershed District. 2007.
District required permits. http:/ /www.
minneh.ahacreek.org J permit_req.php
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA}.
2006. W.hy treat sewage? Facts about subsurface
sewage-treatment systems. Water/ Wastewater-
ITS #1.10. St. Paul, MN.
Phillips, J. 1989. Nonpoint source pollution
control. effectiveness of riparian forests along a
coastal plain river. journal oFNydrology. 110:221-
37.
City of Santa Monica, California. No date.
.Municipal. code :Chapter 7, urban runoff.
pollution. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
ordinance/ documents / SantaMonicaUR.pdf.
City of Seattle, Washington. 2005a. Seattle
right-oE-way improvements manual: Chapter
6, streetscape design guidelines. http: / /www
seattle.gov /transportation/ rowmanual /
manual f 6_4.asp#7.
Randolph, John. 2004. Environmental Land Use
Planning and Management. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Schueler, T. 1995. Site planning for urban stream
protection. Washington, DC: Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.
Design for Health t 5 I.INIVERSiTY OF 1wIINNES{7TA
www.designforhaalth,vet
Planning Information Sheet: Influencing Water Quality with Comprehensive Planning and Ordinances
Steedman, R.J. 1988. Modification and
Assessment of an Index of Biotic Integrity to
Quantify Stream Qu.ali y in Southern Ontario.
Canadian Journal vfFisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 45:492-501.
Tufford, D.L., H.N. McKellar Jr., and J.R. Hussey.
1998. In-Stream Nonpoint Source Nutrient
Prediction with Land-Use Proximity and
Seasonality. Journal of Environmental Quality
27:100-111.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA}.
2005. Handbook for managing onsite and
clustered (decentralized) Wastewater treatment
systems: A.n introduction to .management
tools and information for implementing EPA's
management guidelines. http:i /www.epa.gov/
owrn /septic/ pubs / onsite_handbook.pdf.
. 2006a. National pollutant discharge
elimination system. http:/ /cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes / index.cfm.
. 2006b. Model ordinances to protect local
resources. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
ordinance/mol7.htm.
. 2006c. Drinking water contaminants.
http: / / www.epa.gov/ safewater/contaminants /
index.html.
Wenger, S. J. and L. Fowler. 2000. Protecting
Stream and River Corridors. University of
Georgia. Carl Vinson Institute of Government.
http: / / tirww.rivercenter.uga.edu/publications/
pdf / riparian_buffer~uidebook.pdf.
Design for Health t6 UNIVERSITY OI' 1VIINNESUTA
www.dasignforhealth.nat