The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-08-15 ENR Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Monday, August 15, 2022 7:00 p.m. Maplewood City Council Chambers 1803 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. July 18, 2022 5. New Business a. Wetland Buffer Waiver, Xcel Energy, 1555 Century Avenue North 6. Unfinished Business 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commissioner Presentations 9. Staff Presentations (oral reports) a. Clean Energy for All – Metro CERTs Seed Grant Update 10. Adjourn Agenda Item 4.a. MINUTES CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY,JULY 18, 2022 7:00 P.M. 1.CALL TO ORDER Acting ChairpersonBryan called a meeting of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission to order at 7:02p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Emma Broadnax, CommissionerPresent Rebecca Bryan, Acting ChairpersonPresent Benjamin Guell, CommissionerAbsent Mollie Miller, CommissionerAbsent Ann Palzer, CommissionerPresent Ted Redmond, CommissionerPresent Staff Present ShannFinwall, Environmental Planner 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff requestedthe addition of Staff Item 9.d. EV Charging Ordinances Commissioner Redmondmoved to approve the July 18, 2022, ENR Commission agenda with the addition of 9.d. EV Charging Ordinances. Seconded by Commissioner BroadnaxAyes All The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Approval of the May 16, 2022, ENR Commission minutes. Commissioner Palzer moved to approve the May 16, 2022, ENR ENR Commission meeting minutes. Seconded by Commissioner RedmondAyes CommissionersRedmond andPalzer Abstain Commissioners Bryan and Broadnax The motion passed. 1 5.NEW BUSINESS a.Resolution of Appreciation for Kayla Dosser Environmental Planner Finwall presented the report. Commissioner Palzer made a motion to approve the resolution of appreciation for Kayla Dosser. Seconded by Commissioner Redmond.Ayes All. The motion passes. b.GreenStep CitiesUpdate Environmental Planner Finwall presented the reportoutlining that the City of Maplewood has received the Step 4 and Step 5 Award from the GreenStep Cities. The City improved on 14 sustainability best practices from 2020 to 2021. Commissioner Redmond recognize that it is an important accomplishment by the City. Commissioner Palzer indicated the new climate best practices outlined in the program will help the City achieve its climate and energy goals. No action was required. 6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS a.Climate Action Financing and Project Priorities Environmental Planner presented the report. The Commissioner had the following feedback: The City should continue to strive for solar on all buildings, particularly new buildings. The fleet study should be a top priority. The City should consider setting aside a fund yearly for sustainability projects. Staff will finalize the report and bring it back to the Commission for final approval. 7.COMMISSIONERPRESENTATIONS None. 8.STAFF PRESENTATIONS Environmental Planner Finwall updated the Commission on the following: a.Waterfest Update June4, 2022 2 b.Harvest Park Native Seed Garden Open House July 23, 2022 c.National Night Out August 2, 2022 d.MN Climate Change Subcabinet Support Letter for EV Charging Ordinance The Environmental Commission agreed the City should sign onto the letter of support. 9.ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Palzermade a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner BroadnaxAyes All The motion passed. Commissioner Palzer adjourned the meetingat 8:20p.m. 3 Agenda Item 5.a. ENVIRONMENTAL & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSIONSTAFF REPORT Meeting Date August 15, 2022 REPORT TO: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission REPORT FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner PRESENTER: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Wetland BufferWaiver, Xcel Energy, 1555 Century Avenue North AGENDA ITEM: Action Requested: Motion Discussion Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution Ordinance Contract/Agreement Proclamation Policy Issue: Xcel Energy is requesting city approval of a conditional use permit, wetland buffer waiver, and a public vacation of an easement in order to construct improvements to its gas plant at 1555 Century Avenue North. The Environmental and Natural Resources Commission is being asked to review a 25-foot wetland buffer waiver for encroachments to a Manage B wetland and a 70-foot wetland buffer waiver for encroachments to a Manage A wetland. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the wetland buffer waiver for Xcel Energy’s gas plant improvements at 1555 Century Avenue North. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact? No Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0 Financing source(s): Adopted Budget Budget Modification New Revenue Source Use of Reserves Other: N/A Strategic Plan Relevance: Community Inclusiveness Financial & Asset Mgmt Environmental Stewardship Integrated Communication Operational Effectiveness Targeted Redevelopment The city deemed the applicant’s application complete on August 5, 2022. The initial 60-day review deadline for a decision is October 4, 2022. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary to complete the review. The Environmental and Natural Resources Commission reviews wetland buffer waivers to rectify impacts by reviewing and making recommendations for possible repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of the wetland buffer. Background: Xcel Energy is requesting city approval of a conditional use permit, wetland buffer waiver, and a public vacation of an easement in order to construct improvements to its gas plant located at 1555 Century Avenue North. The improvements would include: Improve the existing stormwater routing, storage, and discharge systems on-site while implementing precautions to decrease the risks associated with any liquid propane storage tank failure. Replace existing propane loading facilities with a new facility located to the north of the existing compound. The new facility will increase operational safety and efficiency at the plant. Install a new fire suppression system with a connection to a proposed water line in Century Avenue. Install new compressors, pumps, additional fire and gas detection systems, and electrical equipment to support the new equipment. Conditional Use Permit and Public Vacation of an Easement The facility at this site dates back to the 1950s, predating the city’s current requirements. The city’s ordinance now requires a conditional use permit for public and private utilities which can be located within any zoning district. The use of the site will be consistent with what has historically been on this site. The bulk of the proposed work will occur within the existing footprint of the facilities on site. However, the applicant will also be expanding the site’s footprint by about 30,000 square feet to the northeast in order to construct a new propane loading facility. This new area will include an 8-foot tall chain link fence running along the perimeter of the site, which will match the existing fence on site. The applicant is requesting the public vacation of an easement that was originally taken for a road extension related to a proposed development in the late 1970s. This road extension was never constructed and the development occurred with a different layout that didn’t utilize this easement area for roadway purposes. The easement area does not contain any public utilities. The Engineering Department has no concerns with the proposed easement vacation. The planning commission will hold a public hearing on August 16, 2022, to review the conditional use permit and public vacation of the easement. Wetland Buffer Waiver Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed and approved the applicant’s wetland delineation. Wetland 1 is identified as incidental (manmade wetland with no wetland buffer requirements), Wetland 2 is identified as a Manage B wetland (50-foot minimum, 75-foot average wetland buffer), and Wetland 3 is identified as a Manage A wetland (75-foot minimum, 100-foot average wetland buffer). The applicant’s wetland delineation is attached to this report. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the wetland buffer requirements for the expansion of the existing utility due to site constraints and new code requirements. The expansion will require the filling of the incidental wetland (Wetland 1), grading to within 50 feet of the Manage B wetland (Wetland 2), and grading to within 30 feet of the Manage A wetland (Wetland 3). The incidental wetland will be removed from the City’s wetland map, and no wetland regulations will apply. The proposal requires a 25-foot wetland buffer waiver for encroachments to the Manage B wetland and a 70-foot wetland buffer waiver for encroachments to the Manage A wetland. 2 Attached find the environmental review of the project prepared by Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner, and Carole Gernes, Natural Resources Coordinator. The review details the wetland buffer impacts and mitigation strategies recommended for approval of the project. In summary, staff is recommending the following prior to issuance of a grading permit: 1. Detailed grading plan showing the wetland edges, required wetland buffers, and dimensions of all wetland buffer enroachments. The current plan does not give dimensions of the encroachment to the wetlands. 2. A wetland buffer sign plan which shows the location of signs on the approved wetland buffer edge on a survey. The signs indicate no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the approved buffer. Signs to be installed prior to grading. 3. A wetland buffer averaging plan identifying where the wetland buffer will be increased on the west side of the Manage B wetland to ensure mitigation of the averaged 50-foot buffer encroachment on the south side of the wetland. 4. A wetland buffer mitigation plan showing repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of the remaining buffer along the Manage A wetland. Mitigation should include removal of invasive species and planting of native plants within the buffer. 5. Sign a wetland buffer mitigation agreement with the City requiring that the applicant establish and maintain the required mitigation within the buffer for a three-year period. 6. A cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the wetland buffer mitigation. The City will retain the escrow for up to three years as outlined in the maintenance agreement to ensure the wetland buffer mitigation is established and maintained. Trees and Landscaping The applicant’s plans indicate that 85 trees will be removed due to this project. City ordinance requires that the applicant either plant 85 2-caliper inch trees or pay into the City’s tree fund. The applicants’ narrative states, “due to the amount of existing woodland on the site, Xcel Energy is proposing to pay into the City’s tree fund.” Tree fund payments can be approved by the city if the applicant is unable to plant trees on the site. The cost of tree replacement is $60 per caliper inch of replacement tree that cannot be planted on site. If no trees are replanted on this site, the applicant would owe the City’s tree fund for $10,200 (85 trees x 2 caliper inches x $60). The attached environmental review details the recommendations for tree preservation/replacement and landscaping on the site. In summary, staff is recommending the following prior to issuance of a grading permit: Trees: 1. Preservation of one large 27-caliper inch specimen oak tree along Century Avenue. 2. Tree planting along the east side of the site, adjacent Century Avenue. 3. Tree escrow of $60 per caliper inch of replacement tree required on the site. The escrow will be released once the trees are planted with a one-year warranty. 3 3.Tree fund payment for$60 per caliper inch of replacement tree that cannot be planted on site. Overall Landscaping: 1. Plant plugs in addition to the seed. 2. Install native pollinator supporting shrubs at the edge of the wooded areas and on slopes. 3. Submit a maintenance plan for establishing seed plantings for the first three years. 4. Invasive species control. Department Comments Engineering Please see Jon Jarosch’s engineering report, dated August 8, 2022, attached to this report. Environmental Please see Shann Finwall and Carole Gernes’ environmental report, dated August 5, 2022, attached to this report. Fire and Building No comments. Commission Review August 15, 2022: The environmental and natural resources commission will review this project. August 16, 2022: The planning commission will hold a public hearing and review this project. Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the 82 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinion about this proposal. Staff did not receive any comments. Reference Information Site Description Campus Size: 19.73 acres Existing Land Use: Gas Plant Surrounding Land Uses North: City of Maplewood Open Space East: Vacant and Commercial Properties in the City of Oakdale South: Railroad Tracks and Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park West: Ramsey County Open Space 4 Planning Existing Land Use: Utility Existing Zoning: Light Manufacturing Attachments: Overview Map 2040 Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Wetland Map Applicant’s Narrative Site Plan Grading Plan Wetland Impact Map Wetland Delineation Report Tree Preservation Plan Seeding Plan 5 Attachment 1 1555 Century Avenue North - Overview Map July 22, 2022 City of Maplewood Legend ! I 0475 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County Attachment 2 1555 Century Avenue North - 2040 Future Land Use Map July 22, 2022 City of Maplewood Legend ! I Future Land Use - 2040 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Public/Institutional Utility Open Space 0475 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County Attachment 3 1555 Century Avenue North - Zoning Map July 22, 2022 City of Maplewood Legend ! I Zoning Single Dwelling (r1) Multiple Dwelling (r3) Planned Unit Development (pud) Farm (f) Open Space/Park Light Manufacturing (m1) 0475 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County Attachment 4 1555 Century Avenue North - Wetland Map July 22, 2022 City of Maplewood Legend ! I Wetlands Manage A Manage B Manage C Storm Water Pond 0475 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County Attachment 5 ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Attachment 9 Wetland Delineation Report Maplewood Gas Plant Expansion Prepared for Xcel Energy May 2022 Wetland Delineation Report Maplewood Gas Plant Expansion Prepared for Xcel Energy May 2022 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Wetland Delineation Report May 2022 Contents 1.0Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 General Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1Water Resources.............................................................................................................................................................2 2.2Soil Resources..................................................................................................................................................................2 2.3Precipitation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Wetland Delineation ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1Wetland Delineation and Classification Methods .............................................................................................. 5 3.2Aquatic Resources, ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Wetland 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Wetland 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.3 Wetland 3 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 Regulatory Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 5.0 References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 P:\\Mpls\\23 MN\\62\\23621438 Xcel Maplewood Propane Plant\\WorkFiles\\Wetland Delineation i List of Tables Table 1 Soils located in the project area Table 2 Antecedent Moisture Conditions Prior to May 2022 Site Visits Table 2 Precipitation in Comparison to WETS Data Table 4 Delineated Wetlands List of Figures Figure 1 Project Location Figure 2 Topography Figure 3 National Wetlands Inventory Figure 4 Public Waters Inventory Figure 5 Soil Survey Figure 6 Wetland Delineation Results List of Appendices Appendix A Wetland Delineation Datasheets Appendix B Site Photographs Appendix C MnRAM Wetland Management Classification ii 1.0 Introduction This wetland delineation report has been prepared by Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) on behalf of Xcel Energy in support of the Maplewood Gas Plant Expansion Project (project). The project area is located in the City Maplewood, Minnesota within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (Figure 1). A field wetland delineation was conducted by Barr for the project on May 13th, 2022. During the field wetland delineation three wetlands were identified and delineated within the project area. This report includes general environmental setting information (Section 2.0), descriptions of the delineated wetlands (Section 3.0), and a discussion of regulations and the administering authorities (Section 4.0). 1 2.0 General Environmental Setting 2.1 Site Description The project area is centered on the existing Maplewood Gas Plant and extends north and west of the facility boundary (Figure 1). The area outside of the Gas Plant boundary includes deciduous forest and a wetland complex. Generally, the topography has a west facing aspect with the lowest elevation (978 feet MSL ) along the western boundary and the highest elevation (1,002 feet MSL) along the eastern boundary (Figure 2). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), in collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), developed an Ecological Classification System (ECS) for hierarchical mapping and classification of Minnesota land areas with similar native plant communities and other ecological features. Based on the ECS, the project area is located in the St. Paul-Baldwin Plains Subsection of the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (MN DNR, 2021). In general, pre-settlement vegetation in this subsection was primarily comprised of oak and aspen savanna communities; tallgrass prairie and maple-basswood forest were also common. Tallgrass prairie was concentrated on level to gently rolling portions of the landscape. Bur oak savanna developed on rolling moraine ridges at the western edge of the subsection and in dissected ravines at the eastern edge. Maple-basswood forest was restricted to the portions of the landscape with the greatest fire protection, either in steep, dissected ravines or where stream orientation reduced fire frequency or severity 2.1 Water Resources The project area is located within the Mississippi River – Twin Cities major watershed (HUC4 name: Upper Mississippi, #20) and the Middle Mississippi Wetland Bank Service Area 7. Prior to the wetland delineation, Barr reviewed the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) to identify whether any wetlands are mapped within the project area. The NWI was initially developed in the 1970s by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and has sense been updated in 2013 by the MN DNR. The NWI identifies approximately 4.4 acres of wetland within the project area. The majority of the NWI wetlands are classified as freshwater emergent wetlands (PEM1/C/Ad; 4.19 acres). The remaining wetland areas are classified as freshwater pond (PUBH; 0.14 acres), and freshwater shrub wetland (PSS1A; 0.13 acres) (Figure 3). The Public Waters Inventory (PWI) was queried for waterbodies designated as public waters by the MN DNR. The wetland complex located on the northern and western ends of the project area is classified as a public water wetland (PWI 19401-W) (Figure 4). 2.2 Soil Resources Soil information for the project area was obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (USDA - NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database (USDA, 2022). There are four soil series mapped within the project area (Figure 5, Table 1). Kingsley sandy loam, 2 6 to 12 percent slopes (342C) represents the dominant soil series, making up approximately 32percent of the project area. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils are classified as hydric using the following rating: Hydric (100%), Predominantly hydric (67%-99%), Partially hydric (>33%-<67%), Predominantly non-hydric (>0%-<34%), Not hydric (0%). Approximately 73.6 percent of the soil series within the project area are classified as non-hydric soil; the remaining 26.4 percent of the project area are classified as hydric soils (Table 1). Table 1 Soils Located within the Project Area Map Unit Hydric Acres of Percent of Symbol Map Unit Name rating Project area Project area 342C Kingsley sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0% 6.2 31.6% 342DKingsley sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 0% 3.0 15.3% 541 Rifle muck 100% 5.1 26.4% 861C Urban land-Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 0% 5.2 26.7% 2.3 Precipitation Precipitation data were analyzed in comparison to the statistical climatic WETS table data developed by the NRCS specifically for evaluating climatic normalcy in conducting wetland delineations. The WETS method establishes a normal range of monthly and annual precipitation based on the long-term precipitation record. The normal condition is defined as the conditions that are present 30 percent of the time. Precipitation data were obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group, Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval from a Gridded Database (Minnesota Climatology Office, 2021) for wetlands in Ramsey County, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Section 24. The wetland delineation was conducted on May 13, 2022. According to the three-month analysis of antecedent precipitation, the amount of precipitation at the time of the wetland delineation was higher than the normal average for this time (Table 2). The precipitation in the project area was higher then the normal range in April and March and within the normal range in February. The precipitation for the multi- 3 month score for the project area was above the normal range for the three months prior to the site visit. Precipitation amounts were within the normal range in 2022 (Table 3), and it was anticipated that the wetlands would exhibit primary indicators of wetland hydrology. Table 2 Antecedent Moisture Conditions Prior to May 2022 Site Visits values are in inches (score using 1991-2020 normal first prior month: second prior month: third prior month: period) April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 estimated precipitation total for this 4.82 3.55 R 0.67R location: there is a 30% chance this location will 2.50 1.42 0.60 have less than: there is a 30% chance this location will 3.50 2.13 1.33 have more than: type of month:drynormal wetWetWetnormal monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3= 6 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 17 (Wet) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) Table 3 Precipitation in comparison to WETS data 30% chance Average Month Inches more thanless than 20202021 2022 0.88 1.06 0.49 0.85 0.89 0.75R January 0.89 1.19 0.48 0.48 0.64 0.67R February 1.70 2.12 1.10 2.39 3.47 3.55R March 2.48 3.01 1.68 1.66 2.91 4.82 April N/A 3.69 4.38 2.68 5.76 2.85 May N/A 4.56 5.70 3.29 8.07 1.69 June N/A 3.794.582.564.541.29 July N/A 3.76 4.66 2.73 3.02 7.11 August N/A 3.24 4.17 2.23 1.06 2.48 September N/A 2.39 2.79 1.41 2.62 1.69 October N/A 1.55 1.82 0.77 1.29 1.22 November N/A 1.10 1.39 0.60 1.01 2.20 December N/A 19.03 21.72 16.31 22.45 15.42 Warm Season N/A 30.01 33.70 26.62 32.75 28.44 Annual N/A 30.05 33.88 26.09 37.35 28.25 Water Year WETS = Natural Resources Conservation Service statistical method for determining the normal range of monthly precipitation for making wetland determinations. 1991-2021Normal Period. Precipitation Data: WETS Statistics and monthly data from MN Climatology gridded database at T29N, R22W, Section 24 Sedil, MN. Green = precipitation above the normal range, red = precipitation below the normal range, blue = precipitation data is incomplete 4 3.0 Wetland Delineation 3.1 Wetland Delineation and Classification Methods The wetland delineation was completed according to the Routine On-Site Determination Method specified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987, Edition), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral Northeast Region (USACE, 2012), and the requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991. The delineated wetland boundaries and associated sample points were surveyed using a Global Positioning System (GPS) with sub-meter accuracy. Wetlands were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cowardin System (Cowardin et al., 1979), the USFWS Circular 39 system (Shaw and Fredine, 1956), and the Eggers and Reed Wetland Classification System (Eggers and Reed, 2015). Soil samples were collected to examine for the presence of hydric soil indicators using the NRCS hydric soil indicators (Version 8.2). Hydrologic conditions were evaluated at each soil boring. Additionally, the dominant plant species were identified, and the corresponding wetland indicator status of each plant species was determined. The soil colors, hydrologic conditions, and dominant plant species and indicator species were noted on the Wetland Data Forms (Appendix A). Photographs taken at the time of the site visit are provided in Appendix B. The MnRAM wetland assessment forms are provided in Appendix C. 3.2 Aquatic Resources, During the wetland delineation, three wetlands, totaling 5.79 acres were delineated within the project area (Table 4). The delineated wetlands consist of a large wetland complex located on the northern and western project boundary and extending outside the project area to the west (Figure 6). Only the portions of the wetland located within the project area were delineated. Descriptions and assessments of the wetland areas are provided below, with representative photographs in Appendix B. Table 4: Delineated Wetlands Cowardin Wetland IDCircular 39ClassificationEggers and ReedWetland Size (Acres) Wetland 1 Type 1PFOA seasonally flooded basin0.03 Wetland 2 Type 3/4 PEMC/PABH shallow marsh/Deep marsh 0.47 Wetland 3 Type 3PEMC/PEME Shallow marsh/fresh wet meadow 5.29 Total 5.79 5 3.2.1 Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is a seasonally flooded basin located north of the existing Maplewood Gas Plant (Figure 6). The wetland is a shallow basin that likely fills with water during rain events. During the field survey the wetland contained standing water that was less than 1 foot deep. At Sample Point 1W, four primary hydrology indicators were observed, including surface water (A1), high water table (A2), saturation (A3), and sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8). The wetland drains into wetland 3 through a narrow surface drainage. The drainage did not have a defined channel or bed and bank. The wetland is located within a deciduous forest. The overstory was dominated by boxelder trees (Acer negundo; FAC) and buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica; FAC). The herbaceous layer contained a thick layer of leaf litter with sapling buckthorn. No emergent vegetation was observed within the inundated area of the wetland boundary. According to NRCS data, the soils mapped in Wetland 1 are classified as Kingsley sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, a non-hydric soil. Sampled soils consisted of a dark matrix color from the soil surface down to approximately 8 inches. Redox concentrations were observed 5 inches from the soil surface down to 24 inches. The soils at Sample Point 1 met the redox dark surface (F6) hydric soil indicator. The transition to upland was defined by a sudden change in elevation around the perimeter of the wetland. The vegetation in the adjacent upland area consisted of deciduous woodland. Using the MnRAM wetland assessment methodology, Wetland B was classified as a Manage B wetland. As the wetland is rated medium for hydrology characteristics and water quality and vegetative diversity (Appendix C). 3.2.2 Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is a shallow marsh/deep marsh wetland located north of the existing Maplewood Gas Plant (Figure 6). During the field survey the wetland contained standing water that was more than 2 feet deep. At Sample Point 2W, three primary hydrology indicators were observed, including surface water (A1), high water table (A2), and saturation (A3). The wetland drains into wetland 3 through a narrow surface drainage. The drainage did not have a defined channel or bed and bank. The wetland boundary is bordered by woody vegetation such as boxelder, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides; FACW), and buckthorn. The northern boundary of the wetland was dominated by narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia; OBL) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea; FACW) however most of the wetland was unvegetated at the time of the delineation. According to NRCS data, the soils mapped in Wetland 2 are classified as Kingsley sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, a non-hydric soil. Sampled soils consisted of a dark matrix color from the soil surface down to approximately 12 inches with a depleted matrix from 12 to 18 inches. The soils at Sample Point 2W met the Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) hydric soil indicator. 6 The transition to upland was defined by a sudden change in elevation around the perimeter of the wetland. The vegetation in the adjacent upland area consisted of deciduous woodland. Using the MnRAM wetland assessment methodology, Wetland 2 was classified as a Manage B wetland. As the wetland is rated medium for hydrology characteristics and water quality and vegetative diversity (Appendix C). 3.2.3 Wetland 3 Wetland 3 is a shallow marsh located north and west of the existing Maplewood Gas Plant (Figure 6). The wetland extends outside of the project area to the north and west. During the field survey, the wetland contained standing water that was less than 1 foot deep. The southern portion of Wetland 3 was classified as a fresh wet meadow as it did not contain cattails and appeared to be inundated less frequently than the shallow marsh portion of the wetland. Within Wetland 3, three primary hydrology indicators were observed, including surface water (A1), high water table (A2), and saturation (A3). The northern segment of wetland 3 is dominated by narrowleaf cattails. The wetland is boarded by woody vegetation such as quaking aspen, boxelder, and buckthorn. The western segment of the wetland was dominated by reed canary grass and reed grass (Pharagmites australis; FACW). According to NRCS data, the soils mapped at Wetland 3 are classified as Rifle muck, a hydric soil. Sampled soils consisted of a dark matrix color from the soil surface down to approximately 8 inches. Redox concentrations were observed from 8 inches from the soil surface down to 24 inches. The soils at Sample Point 3W met the redox dark surface (F6) hydric soil indicator. The transition to upland was defined by a sudden change in elevation around the perimeter of the wetland. The vegetation in the adjacent upland area consisted of deciduous woodland. Using the MnRAM wetland assessment methodology, Wetland 3 was classified as a Manage B wetland. As the wetland is rated medium for hydrology characteristics and water quality and vegetative diversity (Appendix C). 7 4.0 Regulatory Overview The USACE regulates the dredge or placement of fill materials into wetlands that are located adjacent to or are hydrologically connected to interstate or navigable waters under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). If the USACE has jurisdiction over any portion of a project, they may also review impacts to wetlands under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If wetland impacts will occur a jurisdictional determination should be sent to the USACE to confirm whether or not the wetlands would be regulated under the CWA. Filling, excavating, and draining wetlands are also regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and the Minnesota Public Waters Inventory Program, which are administered by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) and the MN DNR. The RWMWD, MN DNR, and the USACE, should be contacted before altering any aquatic resources in the project area. Delineated wetland boundaries may be reviewed, if needed, by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisting of representatives from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), Hennepin County, and the RWMWD, along with the USACE. 8 5.0 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and R.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS079/31, 103 pp. Eggers, S.D. and Reed, D.M. 2015. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Version 3.2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. St. Paul, Minnesota, July 2015. Minnesota State Climatology Office. 2022. Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval from a Gridded Database. Accessed from: http://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Soil Survey of Ramsey County, Minnesota. Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt and J.F. Berkowitz(eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral Northeast Region. January 2012. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition). Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1956. Wetlands of the United States Circular 39. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 9 YTNUOC NOTGNIHSAW YTNUOC YESMAR YTNUOC NOTGNIHSAW YTNUOC YESMAR YTNUOC NOTGNIHSAW YTNUOC YESMAR m a r t S d m U YTNUOC NOTGNIHSAW YTNUOC YESMAR YTNUOC NOTGNIHSAW YTNUOC YESMAR YTNUOC NOTGNIHSAW YTNUOC YESMAR WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: 5 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) 5 Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. 5 Is the Sampled Area Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 5 withina Wetland? Yes No 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visble on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: 5 Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 5 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A/B) 5. 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: = Total Cover OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = Sapling/Shrub Stratum(Plot size: ) FAC species x 3 = 5 1. FACU speciesx 4 = 2. UPL speciesx 5 = 3. Column Totals: (A) (B) 4. Prevalence Index = B/A = 5. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 6. 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 7. 5 2 - Dominance Test is >50% = Total Cover 1 3 - Prevalence Index is Herb Stratum(Plot size: ) 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting 5 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1. 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 2. 3. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 4. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 6. Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 7. at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 8. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 9. 10. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 11. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 12. height. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation 4. 5 Present? Yes No = Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbershere or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describeto the depth needed to document the indicatoror confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features 12 (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TypeLoc Texture Remarks 12 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region 5 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. 5 Is the Sampled Area 5 withina Wetland? Yes No 5 5 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 5 5 5 5 Field Observations: 5 5 5 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No VEGETATION – Dominance Test worksheet: 5 Prevalence Index worksheet: 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 5 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Sapling/shrub Herb Woody vines Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 Present? Yes No SOIL Profile Description: (Describeto the depth needed to document the indicatoror confirm the absence of indicators.) 3 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: LRR R,LRR K, L, MLRA 149B MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR R, MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR K, LLRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L 5 LRR K, L, R MLRA 149B MLRA 144A, 145, 149B LRR R, MLRA 149B Restrictive Layer (if observed): 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region 5 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. 5 Is the Sampled Area 5 withina Wetland? Yes No 5 5 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: 5 5 5 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No VEGETATION – Dominance Test worksheet: 5 5 Prevalence Index worksheet: 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 5 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Sapling/shrub Herb Woody vines Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 Present? Yes No SOIL Profile Description: (Describeto the depth needed to document the indicatoror confirm the absence of indicators.) 3 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: LRR R,LRR K, L, MLRA 149B MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR R, MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR K, LLRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L, R MLRA 149B MLRA 144A, 145, 149B LRR R, MLRA 149B Restrictive Layer (if observed): 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region 5 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. 5 Is the Sampled Area 5 withina Wetland? Yes No 5 5 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 5 5 5 5 Field Observations: 5 5 5 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No VEGETATION – Dominance Test worksheet: 5 Prevalence Index worksheet: 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 5 5 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Sapling/shrub Herb Woody vines Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 Present? Yes No SOIL Profile Description: (Describeto the depth needed to document the indicatoror confirm the absence of indicators.) 3 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: LRR R,LRR K, L, MLRA 149B MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR R, MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR K, LLRR K, L LRR K, L 5 LRR K, L LRR K, L, R MLRA 149B MLRA 144A, 145, 149B LRR R, MLRA 149B Restrictive Layer (if observed): 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region 5 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. 5 Is the Sampled Area 5 withina Wetland? Yes No 5 5 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: 5 5 5 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No VEGETATION – Dominance Test worksheet: 5 Prevalence Index worksheet: 5 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 5 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Sapling/shrub Herb Woody vines Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 Present? Yes No SOIL Profile Description: (Describeto the depth needed to document the indicatoror confirm the absence of indicators.) 3 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: LRR R,LRR K, L, MLRA 149B MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR R, MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR K, LLRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L, R MLRA 149B MLRA 144A, 145, 149B LRR R, MLRA 149B Restrictive Layer (if observed): 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region 5 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. 5 Is the Sampled Area 5 withina Wetland? Yes No 5 5 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 5 5 5 5 Field Observations: 5 5 5 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No VEGETATION – Dominance Test worksheet: 5 5 Prevalence Index worksheet: 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 5 5 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Sapling/shrub Herb Woody vines Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 Present? Yes No SOIL Profile Description: (Describeto the depth needed to document the indicatoror confirm the absence of indicators.) 3 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: LRR R,LRR K, L, MLRA 149B MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR R, MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR K, LLRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L 5 LRR K, L, R MLRA 149B MLRA 144A, 145, 149B LRR R, MLRA 149B Restrictive Layer (if observed): 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region 5 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. 5 Is the Sampled Area 5 withina Wetland? Yes No 5 5 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: 5 5 5 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No VEGETATION – Dominance Test worksheet: 5 Prevalence Index worksheet: 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Sapling/shrub Herb Woody vines Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 Present? Yes No SOIL Profile Description: (Describeto the depth needed to document the indicatoror confirm the absence of indicators.) 3 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: LRR R,LRR K, L, MLRA 149B MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR R, MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR K, LLRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L, R MLRA 149B MLRA 144A, 145, 149B LRR R, MLRA 149B Restrictive Layer (if observed): 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region 5 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS –Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. 5 Is the Sampled Area 5 withina Wetland? Yes No 5 5 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: 5 5 5 5 Field Observations: 5 5 5 5 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No VEGETATION – Dominance Test worksheet: 5 Prevalence Index worksheet: 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 5 5 5 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree Sapling/shrub Herb Woody vines Hydrophytic Vegetation 5 Present? Yes No SOIL Profile Description: (Describeto the depth needed to document the indicatoror confirm the absence of indicators.) 3 Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: LRR R,LRR K, L, MLRA 149B MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR R, MLRA 149BLRR K, L, R LRR K, LLRR K, L LRR K, L LRR K, L 5 LRR K, L, R MLRA 149B MLRA 144A, 145, 149B LRR R, MLRA 149B Restrictive Layer (if observed): 5 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Maplewood Gas Plant Expansion Project Photolog May 13th, 2022 Photograph 1, Wetland 1. view east Photograph 2, Wetland 1 drainage, view north Photograph 3, Wetland 2 deep marsh and shallow marsh. view southwest Photograph 4, Wetland 2 deep marsh, view south Photograph 5, Wetland 3 seasonally flooded basin. view north Photograph 6, Wetland 3 shallow marsh dominated by cattails, view north Photograph 7, Wetland 3 shallow marsh dominated by Phragmites, view east. Photograph 8, Overview of Wetland 3, view south. Photograph 9, western drainage flowing from Gas Plant towards Wetland 3, view west. Attachment 10 Attachment 11 Attachment 12 Environmental Review Project: Xcel Energy Gas Plant Date of Plans: June 21, 2022 Date of Review: August 5, 2022 Location: 1555 Century Avenue Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner 651-249-2304, shann.finwall@maplewoodmn.gov Carole Gernes, Natural Resources Coordinator 651-249-2416, carole.gernes@maplewoodmn.gov Project Background: Xcel Energy is proposing to make safety upgrades and plant improvements to their existing gas plant at 1555 Century Avenue. There are significant trees and a Manage A and B wetland located on the site. The development must comply with the City’s tree and wetland ordinances, and landscape policies. Trees 1. Tree Preservation Ordinance: a. Significant Trees: Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a healthy tree as follows - hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. b. Specimen Trees: A specimen tree is defined as a healthy tree of any species that is 28 inches in diameter or greater. c. Tree Replacement: If greater than 20 percent of significant trees are removed, tree replacement is based on a calculation of significant trees located on the parcel and significant trees removed. Credits are given for all specimen trees that are preserved. If less than 20 percent of significant trees are removed, tree replacement is based on a calculation of one 2-caliper inch replacement tree per significant tree removed. d. Exemptions: Tree removal related to public improvement projects to “existing” utility work or repair. However, in this case since the existing Xcel Energy utility is expanding with new systems and equipment it does not fall within the tree removal exemptions for existing utilities. e. Tree Replacement: The tree standards require that as many replacement trees be planted on the site as possible. An applicant can pay into the City’s tree fund at a rate of $60 per caliper inch for trees that cannot be planted on site. The City uses the tree fund to manage trees in parks and within the right-of-way. 2.Tree Impacts:There are 542 significant trees equaling 8,165 caliper inches on the site. The applicants propose to remove 85 significant trees equaling 1,404 caliper inches (17 percent tree removal). A majority of the trees removed are cottonwood and box elder species. However, 15 large oak trees will be removed with the expansion. The tree ordinance would require the replacement of one 2-caliper inch tree for each tree removed (85 trees totaling 170 caliper inches). 3. Tree Replacement: The applicants are not proposing to plant any replacement trees. The applicants’ narrative states, “due to the amount of existing woodland on the site, Xcel Energy is proposing to pay into the City’s tree fund.” 4. Tree Recommendations: a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a revised tree plan showing the following: 1) Preservation of the 27-caliper inch specimen oak tree (tree #8). This tree is located along the east side of site, adjacent Century Avenue, just outside of the grading limits. The applicant should attempt to preserve this tree. 2) A detailed plan of the trees being preserved on the east side of the site, adjacent Century Avenue, and a planting plan showing trees planted in areas where no tree preservation is taking plan. While the applicant is proposing no tree replacement, there does appear to be room in this area for tree planting that would help screen the expanded utility from the roadway. 3) Tree escrow in the amount of $60 per caliper inch of trees to be replaced on the site. The escrow will be released once the trees are planted with a one-year warranty. 4) Tree fund payment in the amount of $60 per caliper inch of replacement tree that cannot be planted on site. If no trees are replanted, the applicant would owe the City’s tree fund for $10,200 (85 trees x 2 caliper inches x $60). Wetlands 1. Wetland Ordinance: a. Buffer Minimums: The City’s wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot minimum and 75-foot average wetland buffer be maintained around a Manage B wetland and a 75-foot minimum and 100-foot average wetland buffer be maintained around a Manage A wetland. No mowing, grading, or building is allowed within the buffer. b. Buffer Averaging: The wetland ordinance allows flexibility in instances where, because of the unique physical characteristics of a specific parcel of land, the averaging of buffer width for the entire parcel may be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the land during a development or construction project. In such cases, decreasing the minimum buffer width will be compensated for by increased buffer widths elsewhere in the same parcel to achieve the required 2 average buffer width. Averaging is allowed based on an assessment of the following: 1) Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the average buffer, or would otherwise not be in the public interest. 2) Size of parcel. 3) Configuration of existing roads and utilities. 4) Percentage of parcel covered by wetland. 5) Configuration of wetlands on the parcel. 6) Averaging will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream. 7) Averaging will ensure the protection or enhancement of portions of the buffer which are found to be the most ecologically beneficial to the wetland or stream. 8) A wetland buffer mitigation plan is required for construction of development projects that will require averaging. In reviewing the mitigation plan, the city may require one or more of the following actions: a) Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as by using appropriate technology. b) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the buffer. c) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations during the life of the actions. d) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute buffer land at a two-to-one ratio. e) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. f) Where the city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A restoration plan must be approved by the city before planting. g) Any additional conditions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the soil and water conservation district shall apply. h) A wetland or buffer mitigation surety, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit, of 150 percent of estimated cost for mitigation. The surety will be required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by the administrator. Funds will be held by the city until successful completion of restoration as determined by the city 3 after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to any other provision of city ordinance or city directive. c. Public Utilities: The city council may waive the requirements of this ordinance for the construction or maintenance of public utilities through buffers where it determines that there is a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of the wetland buffer ordinance. In waiving the requirements the city council shall apply the following standards: 1) The city may only allow the construction of public utilities through buffers where there is no other practical alternative. 2) Before the city council acts on the waiver, the environmental and natural resources commission and the planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council. The city shall hold a public hearing for the waiver. The city shall notify the property owners within 500 feet of the property for which the waiver is being requested at least ten days before the hearing. 3) Utility corridors shall not be allowed near endangered or threatened species. 4) Utility corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall be as far from the wetland as possible. 5) Utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the wetland and buffer and avoid large trees as much as possible. 6) The city shall not allow the use of pesticides or other hazardous or toxic substances in buffers or wetlands; however, in some situations the use of herbicides may be used if prior approval is obtained from the administrator. 7) The owner or contractor shall replant utility corridors with appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities or greater after construction ends. Trees shall be replaced as required by city ordinance. 8) Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible at specific points rather than to the road which is parallel to the wetland edge. If parallel roads are necessary they shall be no greater than 15 feet wide. 9) The city council, upon recommendation of the administrator, may require additional mitigation actions as a condition of granting the waiver. 2. Required Wetland Buffers: Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed and approved the wetland delineation. Wetland 1 is identified as incidental (manmade wetland with no wetland buffer requirements), Wetland 2 is identified as a Manage B wetland (50-foot minimum, 75-foot average wetland buffer), and Wetland 3 is identified 4 as a Manage A wetland (75-foot minimum, 100-foot average wetland buffer). The incidental wetland will be removed from the City’s wetland map, and no wetland regulations will apply. 3. Wetland Buffer Impacts: The applicants are requesting a waiver from the wetland buffer requirements for the expansion of the existing utility due to site constraints and new code requirements. The expansion will require the filling of the incidental wetland (Wetland 1), grading to within 50 feet of the Manage B wetland (Wetland 2), and grading to within 30 feet of the Manage A wetland (Wetland 3). The proposal requires a 25-foot wetland buffer waiver for encroachments to the Manage B wetland and a 70-foot wetland buffer waiver for encroachments to the Manage A wetland. 4. Wetland Buffer Recommendations: a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall: 1) Submit a detailed grading plan showing the wetland edges, required wetland buffers, and dimensions of all wetland buffer encroachments. The grading plan submitted shows the existing wetland edges and the proposed encroachments, but no dimensions are shown. 2) Submit a wetland buffer sign plan showing the location of wetland buffer signs on the survey. The sigs should be placed on the edge of the established buffers, adjacent to the utility. The signs specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping is allowed within the buffer. 3) Submit a wetland buffer averaging plan identifying where the wetland buffer will be increased on the west side of the Manage B wetland to ensure mitigation of the averaged 50-foot buffer encroachment on the south side of the wetland. 4) Submit a wetland buffer mitigation plan showing repair, rehabilitation, or restoration of the remaining buffer along the Manage A wetland. Mitigation should include removal of invasive species and planting of native plants within the buffer. 5) Install the city wetland buffer signs that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the buffer. 6) Sign a wetland buffer mitigation and maintenance agreement with the City requiring that the applicant establish and maintain the required mitigation within the buffer for a three-year period. 7) Submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the wetland buffer mitigation. The City will retain the escrow for up to three years as outlined in the maintenance agreement to ensure the wetland buffer mitigation is established and maintained. 5 Overall Landscaping 1. Maplewood Landscape Policies: Review of the overall landscape plan to ensure nonnative or invasive species are avoided, seed mix is appropriate for use in areas proposed, and plantings are climate resilient. 2. Landscaping Recommendations: Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant must submit revised plans with the following detail: a. Plugs: Plant plugsin addition to the seed. This will ensure the establishment of native cover more quickly and discourage weed establishment. b. Shrubs: Install native pollinator supporting shrubs at the edge of the wooded areas and on slopes. c. Seed and Plug Maintenance Plan: Submit a maintenance plan for establishing seed plantings for the first three years. d. Invasive Species Control: Due to the project site’s location next to the City of Maplewood’s Priory Preserve, the following requirements are put in place to ensure invasive species control: 1) Add a clause in the plans and follow through with the following activities: a) Construction Site: All equipment must arrive at the construction site free of soil, organic debris, and seeds. b) Best Management Practices for Invasive Species Control: The applicants will be required to consider the use of the following best management practices (BMP’s) for reducing the spread of invasive species for all activities that involve intentional movement of vehicles, equipment, gear, and/or materials onto or off the woody biomass project sites. Due to the timing of the project and the requirement of the applicants to inflict as little soil disturbance as possible, some of the BMP’s may not apply, especially those in place to prevent the spread of herbaceous invasive plants. The applicants’ project manager and the City of Maplewood’s representative will determine the applicability of BMP’s for this project. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1. Intentional movement of woody biomass material: a. Per MN Statutes Chapter 18, Sections 18.75 to 18.88, obtain a written permit to transport propagating parts of restricted noxious weed in infested material or equipment by contacting the local weed inspector or county agricultural inspector for all counties affected. 6 b.Ensure all materials removed from the project site are secured before transport (e.g. truck is covered or invasive materials are wrapped). 2. Intentional movement of vehicles, light and heavy equipment (chainsaws, brush saw, trucks, tractors, ATV’s, trailers, etc.), and gear (boots, clothing, personal protective equipment (PPE), Velcro straps, Kevlar chaps, backpacks/sprayers, utility bags, etc.) to/from project site: a. Survey site before harvest/management treatment, note/record locations of existing patches of terrestrial invasive species or insect or disease infestations, and either avoid moving through these patches, or treat them prior to moving through them. b. The applicants must identify a cleaning site to ensure all vehicles, equipment, and gear are cleared of dirt/debris/plant material. Alert all parties involved in project activities. c. Inspect all vehicles, equipment, and gear and remove vegetation, soil, and organisms prior to entering and leaving site. Ensure items are free of visible plants/plant parts, seeds, mud, soil and animals, etc. Use a stiff bristled brush, shovel, boot brush, power washer or air compressor, or other appropriate tool. For chainsaws, remove chain to clean out clutch and clean out saw carrier. d. When possible, designate specific vehicles, equipment, and gear for use on uninfested vs. infested sites. e. Do not work under wet conditions to minimize rutting and other soil disturbances. f. Minimize number of access points to site. g. Minimize area of vegetation and soil disturbance by access roads and skid trails. h. Avoid working, parking, or storage in patches of invasive species. When unavoidable, treat area before using and clean vehicles, equipment and gear after work is complete. 7 i.Power spray vehicles and equipment after returning from the site. Dry before use if from worm-infested sites. 3.Intentional movement of materials (soil, rock, gravel, straw, mulch, seed, plants, etc.) in the process of constructing or improving access roads: a.Inspect outside of transport equipment, storage containers and materials for visible presence of invasive species. b.If possible, use local ecotype seeding material, plants, fill, straw, gravel, and mulch that is certified as uninfested. c.Monitor areas of soil disturbance for evidence of invasive species germination or resprouting and treat if found. d.Minimize the use of outside/offsite materials. 4.Procedures to minimize the risk of increasing the dominance of invasive species. In addition to those already listed above: a.If working on multiple sites over a period of days, work in uninfested sites first and end in infested sites. b.If possible work, on frozen ground and with adequate snow cover. c.Minimize access roads, skid trails and staging areas. d.Monitor access roads, skid trails, and staging areas for evidence of invasive species germination or resprouting and treat if found. e.When practicable, stage woody biomass material on already disturbed site. f.Reduce ground disturbance as much as possible during staging of woody biomass materials. g.Consider timing of project-related activities so that invasive species are not bearing seed/fruit. 8