2.5. ERMUSR 06-14-2016 Elk River
Municipal Utilities UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
TO: . FROM:
Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission Eric Volk—Water Superintendent
John Dietz—Chair
Al Nadeau—Vice Chair
Daryl Thompson—Trustee
MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
June 14th, 2016 2.5
SUBJECT:
Wellhead Protection Plan Implementation Evaluation and Work Plan
DISCUSSION:
We are required by our Wellhead Protection Plan to be evaluated every 2 1/2 years on the progress
of our Wellhead Protection Plan. The evaluation was completed by a representative from
Minnesota Rural Water Association(MRWA). The evaluation reviews and documents each
measure in our plan. Between Michelle Canterbury and myself, we have to ensure certain tasks
are completed in the years that are dictated in our protection plan. The MRWA Representative
commented that we are further ahead and much more involved with our Wellhead Protection
Plan than most cities she visits.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff requests that the Commission receive the May 23, 2016 Wellhead Protection Plan
Evaluation and Work Plan.
ATTACHMENT:
• May 23, 2016 Wellhead Protection Plan Implementation Evaluation and Work Plan
IMI
INAJURE
Page l ofl
Reliable Public
Power Provider POWERED To SERVE
58
ELK RIVER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION & WORK PLAN
Date of Wellhead Plan Approval: January 2013
Evaluation Completed By: Eric Volk
Date Evaluation Completed: May 23, 2016
Plan Evaluation Frequency:
(2.5 year minimum)
-�".- - �'-- - �.», ' te'. 'r
=te,, ✓ ="""-- ,-.4 .7,'.,--- --4-'.. .,W4 � ,� . '6 „ � fi�:� ' ', - :' �—''.= ''''' k .''' -� , 7 ,'- .
�s -z ' -h ' " -f,-4 1...t ` -4, s ,,,', f » ` c/ ,i _L- n,
,.w-., ,� "xY lei -:- 3 Et ,- AY„,
s _ az >-- ' , ..,.y . .. 8o' Jd�� a €3 �� ,,-: - — '� .�--.,
"-�- _! i ',it 4 .=0, , � --„ � � � te- � � - - `-
. T � f r3 �' �
„ .„, ,,,_.,_,, ,,.,,
' . ° � } q . �'` ,- _
',� $ i -crte -4 , :.., _ `
'O --'-'f. � � , T mss
i F : r�= r ` - y ✓ , u r-
.
,'.
..t , te ' _ - %F- ; ...n -,--- � -- •
` . 044i, 01e ,, I �" , -.- / -„ - �2f9� "�'.. -�':s. Y S -`'" .� � y / »s1�e✓ -^7 -, � 'ff � x �2
. �. .. -s "'5= � ,_-...„.,..„,„_,—..,.61„.„----„.„--_-__- , Ea �
- - ` �-, � ra ✓ ra � " '4 - p�te - sr-� �' ,� .. " � -
fi4"'- 'q¢ s ¢'Y,.. - -/err- .s� r ` ' ,-. - ` _z '' * ' "
� z � -,- .: r- � ,, 'g�- � � � `' x
1
59
'4“f,li H_4Hj )Wt ;II))tf ,„0 - e 3,34rr 9 31W1' i [100{ -is
A. List any change in status of public water supply wells (new, placed on standby,
sealed, etc) since WHP Plan approval or the last evaluation:
Dates
Well # Unique#
Online Deactivated Sealed
No Changes to Report.
B. List any new facilities or changes in current facilities in the Drinking Water
Supply Management Area (DWSMA) that may be of concern with regard to
groundwater quality. List the facility name, and nature of concern:
Name of Facility Change Distance to Well Well# Date Change Made
1. City of Elk River
(former cinema bid.) Artesian Well t/4 mi. #2 Well identified for
sealing in 2015
C. Have the MDH-approved delineations of the Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA)
or DWSMA been altered in any way? If so, explain. (Example: a high-capacity well
has been constructed near a city well resulting in a need to revise the WHPA/DWSMA
boundaries.)
No.
2
60
771
%,,q111.""141 �- .has n Vfi
This section provides the WHP manager an opportunity to briefly discuss implementation activities that have
occurred since: 1) plan adoption, or 2) the last evaluation report. The major headings are intended as guideposts
to discuss how the additional data collected or additional documentation has helped guide the management of the
WHP plan based on the health risks that specific potential contaminant sources present to the public waster supply
well(s). It would also be useful to discuss which activities or approaches have been successful and which have
not.
A. Discuss briefly, the results of any groundwater sampling or monitoring (that you
are aware of) conducted in the DWSMA. Include results from your own well(s).
Elk River Wells: The aquifer recharges every year. Static and pumping levels have been
the same. Water quality has remained the same since WHP plan approval. No evidence
of contamination, all results within SDWA guidelines. Well #5 recently sampled (May
10, 2016) for tritium, results are pending.
There may be efforts ongoing by the Sherburne SWCD, but status is unknown.
B. Discuss how the Potential Contaminant Source Inventory is kept current. What
changes have taken place since Plan adoption or the last Evaluation?
The PCSI is currently in PDF format in the plan, and the WHP plan manager has access
to the excel spreadsheet. Data is/will be added as changes occur.
C. Please list wellhead protection measures implemented since Plan adoption. Use
the strategies and action portion of your WHP Management Plan as a guide.
Measure 1 Measure 17
Measure 2 Measure 18
Measure 3 Measure 21
Measure 4 Measure 22
Measure 5 Measure 23
Measure 7 Measure 25
Measure 8
Measure 9
Measure 10
Measure 13
Measure
3
61
D. Discuss briefly the involvement of partners in implementation activities of your
WHP Management Plan.
MDH—water quality monitoring, additional sampling for well #5, Well Sealing records
SWCD—Nitrate clinic and well sealing
City of Elk River Engineering Department
City of Elk River Planning Department
MN Rural Water Association—Implementation of measures assistance
E. Itemize difficulties incurred during your plan implementation.
The city adopted an ordinance to regulate the construction of wells in their utility district.
It has been difficult to gain understanding from property owners as to why they cannot
drill a well on their properties.
:;-‘<'-
;-'1,-;.=14 x3(3 Va3
A. List any new data/issues that relate to WHP delineations or drinking water
source management that need to be considered and addressed in the near future,
or that may be used during the next update of the WHP Plan. This could include
topics such as storm water management, redevelopment, changes in agricultural
activities, zoning changes in response to WHP implementation efforts,
groundwater study results, water quality monitoring data, well construction logs,
changes in land uses, new partners, new GIS capabilities, etc.
Nature of Data/Issue Source of Data Outcome
1. No new issues to report at this time.
2.
3.
4.
4
62
A. Inner Wellhead Management Zone (IWMZ)
By rule, the public water supplier must maintain minimum isolation distancesfor any new contaminant
sources, and monitor any existing potential contaminant sources that do not meet isolation distances within
the IWMZ(200 foot radius around any public water supply well). Therefore,the following two items must be
discussed:
a. The implementation of IWMZ management strategies will be done over the next year.
B. Plan Management Strategies
The WHP Team has outlined the following management strategies, taken from the
approved WHP Plan, for attention and effort over the next WHP reporting period:
In addition to the WHP plan measures that are indicated to occur on an annual basis,
the ERMU plans to implement the following:
Measure 2 Measure 15
Measure 4 Measure 17
Measure 5 Measure 18
Measure 6 Measure 19 (pending info. from MDH)
Measure 10 Measure 20 (pending info. From M1DH)
Measure 12 Measure 21
Measure 13 Measure 22
Measure 14 Measure 23
Measure 24
Measure 25
Measure 26
Measure 27
Measure 28
Measure 29
C. Contingency Plan
Was any component of the contingency plan implemented by your system at any time
since the last program evaluation?
No.
5
63
List changes that have been done, or are needed in the contingency plan. The contingency
plan should be updated accordingly.
1. Raising awareness among ERIVIU staff of the contents of the contingency plan.
2. Review contents and update contact numbers, as needed.
D. Data Collection Activities
Data collection (tritium) was collected by MDH from Well #5. Further monitoring will be
based on these results.
Y 6:11319 tt) i t taf.fiNi 113396 9 t �5�'` s }�sE, .� 3 � 3i +' � rr ✓ �c
F. Estimate the annual cost of plan implementation for each plan year including
staff time and actual dollar amount spent.
Year 1-- $11,000
Year 2-- $11,000
G. Estimate full time equivalency (FTE) spent on WHP implementation in term of
percentage of FTE.
FTE= 5%
H.Has the WHP budget been adequate to conduct WHP implementation activities
during the last evaluation period?
Yes.
If no, where could it improve?
6
64
In an effort to provide continuity in the Source Water Protection effort, the
following individuals have been appointed to the WHP Steering Committee. The
Committee will have the responsibility of providing leadership and oversight to
implementation of the Plan. The Committee will meet on a regularly scheduled
basis, with additional meetings scheduled as needed.
Eric Yolk, Water Superintendent,ERMU
Michelle Canterbury, Executive Administrative Assistant,ERMU
Robyn Hoerr, MN Rural Water Association
• Wellhead Protection Plan
• Drinking Water Supply Management Area Map
• Contingency Plan
• Meeting Input
7
65