Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-20 ENR Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION Monday, July 20, 2009 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. June 2, 2009 5. New Business a. Emerald Ash Borer b. Storm Water Management: 1) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Annual Report 2) Surface Water Management Plan - Implementation Strategies 6. Unfinished Business a. Stormwater Management Enhancements at Spoon Lake Preserve b. Capital Improvement Plan c. Wind Turbine Ordinance d. Environmental Protection Ordinance 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. Subcommittee Reports 1) Stormwater 2) Greenways 3) Trash Hauling b. Capitol Region Watershed District 2010 Watershed Management Plan - Update by Commissioner Schreiner c. Fish Creek Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission - Update by Commissioner Yingling 9. Staff Presentations a. Wetland Ordinance Update b. National Night Out (August 4) c. Taste of Maplewood (August 13) d. Nature Center Programs 10. Adjourn Agenda Item 4.a. DRAFT CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 2, 2009 5:15p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 1. CALL TO ORDER - the meeting was called to order at 5:17 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Judith Johannessen Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Frederica Musgrave (Arrived at 5:26 p,m,) Commissioner Bill Schreiner Chair Carole Mason Sherrill Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Ginny Yingling (Arrived at 5:30) Staff members present: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Environmental Planner Finwall asked to add the item "Public Contact Information" under Staff Presentations. A motion was made to approve the agenda as amended by Commissioner Trippler, seconded by Commissioner Lynne. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0 (Commissioners Yingling and Musgrave were not present yet). 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 18, 2009 minutes Commissioner Trippler stated a sentence "the Chair said 'they' would finish their discussion on the Stop Gap ordinance" should be corrected to say "the 'Environmental and Natural Resources Commission' would finish their discussion on the Stop Gap ordinance". The minutes had stated that a motion was carried unanimously; however one of the commissioners didn't arrive until 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Trippler stated that when a commissioner is not present, either the time of the vote needs to be recorded, or it should state that one or more commissioners were not present. Environmental Planner Finwall said she would clarify this by listening to the meeting on tape. Chair Mason Sherrill stated a sentence should be changed to read "engage each other 'intellectually and socially', (not just socially) in business with 'mutual respect and stability' ", instead of "order". A motion was made to approve the minutes by Commissioner Schreiner, seconded by Commissioner Trippler. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 0, with Commissioner Lynne abstaining (Commissioners Yingling and Musgrave were not present yet). May 5, 2009 minutes Commissioner T rippler stated a sentence should be corrected to say "Ms. Szott will send information to the commission on roof top turbines and their impacts on bat and bird populations", Commissioner Musgrave asked a question about whether the "banks of Fish Creek 'were' a bluff or a slope". Chair Sherrill said it should read "banks of Fish Creek 'are' a bluff or a slope". In one paragraph it read "it should be determined how much water is 'shedding' down a slope". This should be corrected to read "how much water is 'shed' down a slope". Chair Mason Sherrill asked for a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Trippler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 1 with Commissioner Musgrave voting against (Commissioner Yingling was not present yet). 5. NEW BUSINESS Chair Mason Sherrill stated the commission was asked by the City Council to appoint a commissioner to serve on the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway ad hoc commission. Environmental Planner Finwall stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission appointed Commissioner Carolyn Peterson to serve on this commission. Community representatives were appointed, and it was hoped that a recommendation for a representative from the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission would be referred to the City Council by June 8, 2009. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor announced the appointees from Ramsey County Parks and Ramsey-Washington Watershed District. Ms. Gaynor was appointed as representative for the city. The commission will meet twice a month through December, 2009. She stated that some meetings will be held during daytime hours to accommodate outside agency personnel. Commissioner Trippler said since this commission will meet twice a month, it would be prudent to elect an alternate member. Commissioners Musgrave and Yingling were nominated to the ad hoc commission. The vote was cast by paper ballot and Commissioner Yingling was appointed by a vote of 6 t01. Commissioners Trippler, Schreiner, and Musgrave were nominated as alternates, and Commissioner Schreiner was appointed by a vote of 4 to 3. 2 Environmental Planner Finwall said she will present this information to the Council meeting on June 8, 2009. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Meeting Times Chair Mason Sherrill stated she was seeking ideas regarding longer meeting times or meeting twice a month in order to finish commission business during the meetings. The commissioners were asked what times and days would work best for them. Environmental Planner Finwall supplied the commissioners with days and dates that were available on the calendar. A final meeting time was not decided on; however Ms, Finwall will revisit this with the Planning Commission members, who meet on Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m. after the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and again at the beginning of 2010 when there will be new commission members. Chair Mason Sherrill said this item will be brought forward to the next meeting. b. Wind Turbine Discussion-to be continued in July Commissioner Yingling stated she had discussed a health department study on wind turbines at the last meeting, and Commissioner Musgrave had requested a copy of that study. Commissioner Yingling will bring this to the commission when it becomes available. She said this study applies to large wind turbines (tower production scale wind mills) and there is no evidence that suggests inner ear upsets are related to residential scale wind systems. Commissioner Musgrave referred to an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press regarding North St. Paul's interest in a wind turbine for their city, and Environmental Planner Finwall said North St. Paul is part of a municipal cooperative that is trying to meet their twenty percent energy generation by an alternative source, which is required by the state of Minnesota. There will be eleven cities in Minnesota installing wind turbines. The location for the North St. Paul turbine will be near County Road B and South Avenue. c. Environmental Protection Ordinance-to be continued in July 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS - There were none. 8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a, Subcommittee Reports 3 Storm Water: Commissioner Schreiner conducted much research and has planned a Power Point presentation for the next meeting. He said storm water issues are costly, however there are some alternative things they could do to reduce cost. He said Maplewood has no requirement for new developments planting seed or seedless trees; this would be a very inexpensive thing to investigate, considering the maple seed problem in Maplewood this spring. Commissioner Schreiner reported cities have done research on commercial development and found there is excessive "paved" parking space. He said average businesses are utilizing 35 percent or less of their paved parking areas- 95 percent of the time. He suggested the city could reduce requirements for parking areas, and businesses could retain more if they built with a pervious or other alternate surface. Greenways: Commissioner Johannessen said the subcommittee gave a report at the last Environmental and Natural Resources meeting. They were asking for comments and suggestions from the commission on that report. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said the subcommittee is not experienced with zoning and different tools that may be available, so their first step was to take the language from the Comprehensive Plan and interpret what it directs about the greenways. They are bringing forward basic concepts of the definitions of greenways, purpose and use, and goals. Commissioner Yingling displayed a map of the greenways for the viewing public and the commission members. The subcommittee is setting the tone for work in the greenways, and the Fish Creek Greenway ad hoc commission will stay focused on protection, including acquisition, as well as recreational components. Commissioner Musgrave stated she would like to be made aware of the dates of the subcommittees' meetings. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said she will send the dates and times of the subcommittee meetings to all commission members. Chair Mason Sherrill asked if there were any questions on the definitions of greenways, purpose and use, or goals. The commission discussed and commented on this; including acquisitions of land, conservation easements, land protection, improving greenway areas in development projects, pinch points, preservation, and keeping a positive tone in discussions with the public. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor and the commissioners agreed that encouraging help, cooperation, and input from citizens in regard to improving or maintaining the green way systems is very important. Trash Hauling: Commissioners Trippler and Lynne discussed their findings. They provided an outline of the implications of trash and trash hauling. Commissioner T rippler stated he was employed by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and worked on publishing the Minnesota Closed Landfill Program Annual Report to the Legislature. He said there are 93 closed landfills in Minnesota and the state spends over 300 million dollars rejuvenating and protecting citizens from these 4 landfills. These landfills are currently closed and will be present for the next 200,000 years. The state of Minnesota spends approximately 10 to 18 million dollars working on closed landfills. This report is published on the Pollution Control Agency Web site, which is www.pca.state.mn.us . Commissioner Lynne had met with a city engineer and discussed the anatomy of a city street. She said when a waste hauling truck travels down a street it unsettles the gravel and the sub-grade. When a second truck comes down the street, it doesn't get a chance to firm up down below. The third and fourth hauler continues to break it down, and streets are grossly undermined by all the weight. One trash hauling truck is equivalent to a thousand cars driving on a street. Each trash hauler adds 4 to 5 years of breakdown to a street. Currently the life of a street is 25 to 30 years, when a street should normally last 100 years. She discussed the breakdown of cars, buses and trucks and compared 2 haulers with 9 haulers. Commissioner Trippler said these ideas and facts are being brought before the commission, and it is up to them to decide if they want to pursue this. Environmental Planner Finwall stated the next step would be to bring alternatives to the commission on how to utilize fewer trucks. Staff will work with this subcommittee and bring this to the commission at the next meeting. b. General Comments: Commissioner Trippler had questions for staff. In the Comprehensive Plan, he asked if all the comments were in, had the Plan been sent to the Metropolitan Council, and when was it expected to come back to the City Council for final approval. Environmental Planner Finwall said the comments were in, it has been sent to the Metropolitan Council, and the council has 120 days to review the document. The Metropolitan Council could extend this to an additional 120 days. She said the City Council would approve the final document. Commissioner Trippler said there was a discussion regarding wind generators, and the minutes of May 5, 2009 stated Ms. Szott would be distributing a report on wind turbines, and asked when they will receive the report. Environmental Planner Finwall said the commission will receive the report in July, 2009. Commissioner Musgrave asked about the groundwater protection plan. She said there was a memorandum sent to the Ramsey County Conservation District with recommendations, and some items brought forward by Commissioner Schreiner would be of interest. She said there is a timeline and a proposal due in the near future regarding discussions on water usage, because of Minnesota's current drought. She proposed more discussions about drought, water usage, and the groundwater protection plan. Environmental Planner Finwall said she will update 5 the commission at the next meeting regarding these issues. She also stated that Maplewood obtains water from the St. Paul Regional Water Service, and is the authority on whether to purpose a watering ban. Commissioner T rippler said the material in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the greenways and the wetland ordinance determined there is need for more citizen involvement with the establishment of these greenways and providing for habitat. Commissioner Schreiner said the need to educate the public about city policies is important. The commissioners had further discussion about overuse of water and materials such as drain oil, making their way into wetlands and sewers. Commissioner Musgrave asked questions about street cleaning. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said the city has a schedule for cleaning streets, however it is always changing. The city sweeps and cleans the streets several times a year in new construction and rain garden areas. Commissioner Musgrave stated in the June issue of the Maplewood newsletter there is an article about community gardens. On Sunday, June 7, 2009 at Cravings, the coffee shop in the Maplewood Library, there will be a meeting regarding community gardens, and former commissioner (Parks and Recreation Department) Julie Binko will be hosting. 8. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Wetland Ordinance Update Environmental Planner Finwall said the wetland ordinance was presented to the City Council and there were eight areas of concern the Council had during their first reading. Staff presented this information during a workshop, and the Council was supportive of most of the options; there are three that still need to be examined further. They will keep the commission updated. The second hearing is scheduled for June 22, 2009, however this has been postponed. b. Emerald Ash Borer Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said staff is meeting with a city forester to develop strategies for this problem. There will be an article in the July Maplewood Newsletter. She said there is excellent information on the state of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota Extension, the State Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Web sites. The Department of Agriculture and the University of Minnesota have a link to the Emerald Ash Borer on their Web sites. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor displayed the bug, which is a 1/3 to % inch green metallic bug. The Web site displays look alike insects, along with ash identification, symptoms on trees, and evidence of larvae that have entered the bark. There will be more information on this topic at a future meeting. c. Community Development and Parks Department Bus Tour Environmental Planner Finwall reminded the commission about the Community Development and Parks Department bus tour on July 1, 2009. She would like feedback on 6 what commission members would prefer on the tour. There was more information included in the commissioners' packets, and Ms. Finwall asked the commission to e-mail their ideas to her. d. Rescheduling of Meetings and Reminders Environmental Planner Finwall requested to reschedule the July 7, 2009 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission meeting to July 21, 2009. Ms. Finwall also requested rescheduling the August 4,2009 meeting, which is the date for National Night Out, to August 18, 2009. She also reminded the commission that Taste of Maplewood is August 13, 2009. Eureka Recycling has offered to assist with this event, and volunteers are welcome. e. Updates at Maplewood Nature Center Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said there are compost bins for sale; and composting workshops are being held at the Nature Center. Saturday, June 20, 2009 is the next workshop. There is currently a tree rebate program, and a Geo-cashing Workshop. Commissioner Therese Sonnek, Parks and Recreation commission is teaching this on June 13, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. A wetland program called Peer in the Pond will be held on June 13, 2009. This is a family outing to learn about pond critters. She said to check the Web site or call the Nature Center for information on any of these programs. f. Public Contact Information Environmental Planner Finwall said a notice was sent to the commissioners in December, 2008 asking for contact information. She asked the commissioners to check the Maplewood Web site to see if their information is up to date. 9. ADJOURN - the meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. 7 Agenda Item 4.a. DRAFT CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 2, 2009 5:15 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 1. CALL TO ORDER - the meeting was called to order at 5:17 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Judith Johannessen Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Frederica Musgrave (Arrived at 5:26 p,m.) Commissioner Bill Schreiner Chair Carole Mason Sherrill Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Ginny Yingling (Arrived at 5:30) Staff members present: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Environmental Planner Finwall asked to add the item "Public Contact Information" under Staff Presentations. A motion was made to approve the agenda as amended by Commissioner Trippler, seconded by Commissioner Lynne. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0 (Commissioners Yingling and Musgrave were not present yet). 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 18, 2009 minutes Commissioner Trippler stated a sentence "the Chair said 'they' would finish their discussion on the Stop Gap ordinance" should be corrected to say "the 'Environmental and Natural Resources Commission' would finish their discussion on the Stop Gap ordinance". The minutes had stated that a motion was carried unanimously; however one of the commissioners didn't arrive until 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Trippler stated that when a commissioner is not present, either the time of the vote needs to be recorded, or it should state that one or more commissioners were not present. Environmental Planner Finwall said she would clarify this by listening to the meeting on tape. Chair Mason Sherrill stated 1 a sentence should be changed to read "engage each other 'intellectually and socially', (not just socially) in business with 'mutual respect and stability' ", instead of "order". A motion was made to approve the minutes by Commissioner Schreiner, seconded by Commissioner Trippler. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 0, with Commissioner Lynne abstaining (Commissioners Yingling and Musgrave were not present yet). May 5, 2009 minutes Commissioner Trippler stated a sentence should be corrected to say "Ms. Szott will send information to the commission on roof top turbines and their impacts on bat and bird populations". Commissioner Musgrave asked a question about whether the "banks of Fish Creek 'were' a bluff or a slope". Chair Sherrill said it should read "banks of Fish Creek 'are' a bluff or a slope". In one paragraph it read "it should be determined how much water is 'shedding' down a slope". This should be corrected to read "how much water is 'shed' down a slope". Chair Mason Sherrill asked for a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Trippler made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 1 with Commissioner Musgrave voting against (Commissioner Yingling was not present yet). 5. NEW BUSINESS Chair Mason Sherrill stated the commission was asked by the City Council to appoint a commissioner to serve on the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway ad hoc commission. Environmental Planner Finwall stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission appointed Commissioner Carolyn Peterson to serve on this commission. Community representatives were appointed, and it was hoped that a recommendation for a representative from the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission would be referred to the City Council by June 8, 2009. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor announced the appointees from Ramsey County Parks and Ramsey-Washington Watershed District. Ms. Gaynor was appointed as representative for the city. The commission will meet twice a month through December, 2009. She stated that some meetings will be held during daytime hours to accommodate outside agency personnel. Commissioner Trippler said since this commission will meet twice a month, it would be prudent to elect an alternate member. Commissioners Musgrave and Yingling were nominated to the ad hoc commission. The vote was cast by paper ballot and Commissioner Yingling was appointed by a vote of 6 tot Commissioners Trippler, Schreiner, and Musgrave were nominated as alternates, and Commissioner Schreiner was appointed by a vote of 4 to 3. 2 Environmental Planner Finwall said she will present this information to the Council meeting on June 8, 2009. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Meeting Times Chair Mason Sherrill stated she was seeking ideas regarding longer meeting times or meeting twice a month in order to finish commission business during the meetings. The commissioners were asked what times and days would work best for them. Environmental Planner Finwall supplied the commissioners with days and dates that were available on the calendar. A final meeting time was not decided on; however Ms. Finwall will revisit this with the Planning Commission members, who meet on Tuesdays at 7:00 p,m. after the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and again at the beginning of 2010 when there will be new commission members. Chair Mason Sherrill said this item will be brought forward to the next meeting. b. Wind Turbine Discussion-to be continued in July Commissioner Yingling stated she had discussed a health department study on wind turbines at the last meeting, and Commissioner Musgrave had requested a copy of that study. Commissioner Yingling will bring this to the commission when it becomes available. She said this study applies to large wind turbines (tower production scale wind mills) and there is no evidence that suggests inner ear upsets are related to residential scale wind systems. Commissioner Musgrave referred to an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press regarding North St. Paul's interest in a wind turbine for their city, and Environmental Planner Finwall said North St. Paul is part of a municipal cooperative that is trying to meet their twenty percent energy generation by an alternative source, which is required by the state of Minnesota. There will be eleven cities in Minnesota installing wind turbines. The location for the North St. Paul turbine will be near County Road B and South Avenue. c. Environmental Protection Ordinance-to be continued in July 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS - There were none. 8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Subcommittee Reports 3 Storm Water: Commissioner Schreiner conducted much research and has planned a Power Point presentation for the next meeting. He said storm water issues are costly, however there are some alternative things they could do to reduce cost. He said Maplewood has no requirement for new developments planting seed or seedless trees; this would be a very inexpensive thing to investigate, considering the maple seed problem in Maplewood this spring. Commissioner Schreiner reported cities have done research on commercial development and found there is excessive "paved" parking space. He said average businesses are utilizing 35 percent or less of their paved parking areas- 95 percent of the time. He suggested the city could reduce requirements for parking areas, and businesses could retain more if they built with a pervious or other alternate surface. Greenways: Commissioner Johannessen said the subcommittee gave a report at the last Environmental and Natural Resources meeting. They were asking for comments and suggestions from the commission on that report. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said the subcommittee is not experienced with zoning and different tools that may be available, so their first step was to take the language from the Comprehensive Plan and interpret what it directs about the greenways, They are bringing forward basic concepts of the definitions of greenways, purpose and use, and goals. Commissioner Yingling displayed a map of the greenways for the viewing public and the commission members. The subcommittee is setting the tone for work in the greenways, and the Fish Creek Greenway ad hoc commission will stay focused on protection, including acquisition, as well as recreational components. Commissioner Musgrave stated she would like to be made aware of the dates of the subcommittees' meetings. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said she will send the dates and times of the subcommittee meetings to all commission members. Chair Mason Sherrill asked if there were any questions on the definitions of greenways, purpose and use, or goals. The commission discussed and commented on this; including acquisitions of land, conservation easements, land protection, improving greenway areas in development projects, pinch points, preservation, and keeping a positive tone in discussions with the public. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor and the commissioners agreed that encouraging help, cooperation, and input from citizens in regard to improving or maintaining the greenway systems is very important. Trash Hauling: Commissioners Trippler and Lynne discussed their findings. They provided an outline of the implications of trash and trash hauling. Commissioner Trippler stated he was employed by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) and worked on publishing the Minnesota Closed Landfill Program Annual Report to the Legislature. He said there are 93 closed landfills in Minnesota and the state spends over 300 million dollars rejuvenating and protecting citizens from these 4 landfills. These landfills are currently closed and will be present for the next 200,000 years. The state of Minnesota spends approximately 10 to 18 million dollars working on closed landfills. This report is published on the Pollution Control Agency Web site, which is www.pca.state.mn.us , Commissioner Lynne had met with a city engineer and discussed the anatomy of a city street. She said when a waste hauling truck travels down a street it unsettles the gravel and the sub-grade. When a second truck comes down the street, it doesn't get a chance to firm up down below. The third and fourth hauler continues to break it down, and streets are grossly undermined by all the weight. One trash hauling truck is equivalent to a thousand cars driving on a street. Each trash hauler adds 4 to 5 years of breakdown to a street. Currently the life of a street is 25 to 30 years, when a street should normally last 100 years, She discussed the breakdown of cars, buses and trucks and compared 2 haulers with 9 haulers, Commissioner T rippler said these ideas and facts are being brought before the commission, and it is up to them to decide if they want to pursue this. Environmental Planner Finwall stated the next step would be to bring alternatives to the commission on how to utilize fewer trucks. Staff will work with this subcommittee and bring this to the commission at the next meeting. b. General Comments: Commissioner Trippler had questions for staff. In the Comprehensive Plan, he asked if all the comments were in, had the Plan been sent to the Metropolitan Council, and when was it expected to come back to the City Council for final approval. Environmental Planner Finwall said the comments were in, it has been sent to the Metropolitan Council, and the council has 120 days to review the document. The Metropolitan Council could extend this to an additional 120 days. She said the City Council would approve the final document. Commissioner Trippler said there was a discussion regarding wind generators, and the minutes of May 5, 2009 stated Ms. Szott would be distributing a report on wind turbines, and asked when they will receive the report. Environmental Planner Finwall said the commission will receive the report in July, 2009. Commissioner Musgrave asked about the groundwater protection plan. She said there was a memorandum sent to the Ramsey County Conservation District with recommendations, and some items brought forward by Commissioner Schreiner would be of interest. She said there is a timeline and a proposal due in the near future regarding discussions on water usage, because of Minnesota's current drought. She proposed more discussions about drought, water usage, and the groundwater protection plan. Environmental Planner Finwall said she will update 5 the commission at the next meeting regarding these issues. She also stated that Maplewood obtains water from the St. Paul Regional Water Service, and is the authority on whether to purpose a watering ban. Commissioner Trippler said the material in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the greenways and the wetland ordinance determined there is need for more citizen involvement with the establishment of these greenways and providing for habitat. Commissioner Schreiner said the need to educate the public about city policies is important. The commissioners had further discussion about overuse of water and materials such as drain oil, making their way into wetlands and sewers, Commissioner Musgrave asked questions about street cleaning. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said the city has a schedule for cleaning streets, however it is always changing. The city sweeps and cleans the streets several times a year in new construction and rain garden areas. Commissioner Musgrave stated in the June issue of the Maplewood newsletter there is an article about community gardens. On Sunday, June 7,2009 at Cravings, the coffee shop in the Maplewood Library, there will be a meeting regarding community gardens, and former commissioner (Parks and Recreation Department) Julie Binko will be hosting, 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Wetland Ordinance Update Environmental Planner Finwall said the wetland ordinance was presented to the City Council and there were eight areas of concern the Council had during their first reading. Staff presented this information during a workshop, and the Council was supportive of most of the options; there are three that still need to be examined further. They will keep the commission updated. The second hearing is scheduled for June 22,2009, however this has been postponed. b. Emerald Ash Borer Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said staff is meeting with.a city forester to develop strategies for this problem. There will be an article in the July Maplewood Newsletter, She said there is excellent information on the state of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota Extension, the State Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Web sites. The Department of Agriculture and the University of Minnesota have a link to the Emerald Ash Borer on their Web sites. Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor displayed the bug, which is a 1/3 to % inch green metallic bug. The Web site displays look alike insects, along with ash identification, symptoms on trees, and evidence of larvae that have entered the bark. There will be more information on this topic at a future meeting. c. Community Development and Parks Department Bus Tour Environmental Planner Finwall reminded the commission about the Community Development and Parks Department bus tour on July 1, 2009. She would like feedback on 6 what commission members would prefer on the tour. There was more information included in the commissioners' packets, and Ms. Finwall asked the commission to e-mail their ideas to her. d. Rescheduling of Meetings and Reminders Environmental Planner Finwall requested to reschedule the July 7, 2009 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission meeting to July 21, 2009. Ms. Finwall also requested rescheduling the August 4, 2009 meeting, which is the date for National Night Out, to August 18, 2009. She also reminded the commission that Taste of Maplewood is August 13,2009. Eureka Recycling has offered to assist with this event, and volunteers are welcome. e. Updates at Maplewood Nature Center Natural Resources Coordinator Gaynor said there are compost bins for sale; and composting workshops are being held at the Nature Center. Saturday, June 20, 2009 is the next workshop. There is currently a tree rebate program, and a Geo-cashing Workshop. Commissioner Therese Sonnek, Parks and Recreation commission is teaching this on June 13, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. A wetland program called Peer in the Pond will be held on June 13, 2009. This is a family outing to learn about pond critters. She said to check the Web site or call the Nature Center for information on any of these programs. f. Public Contact Information Environmental Planner Finwall said a notice was sent to the commissioners in December, 2008 asking for contact information. She asked the commissioners to check the Maplewood Web site to see if their information is up to date. 10. ADJOURN - the meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. 7 Aq('{)c\c, 'JA--e.i'Y\ s. L'L. MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator Ann Hutchinson, Lead Naturalist Emerald Ash Borer July 14, 2009 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION In Spring 2009, Emerald Ash Borer was discovered in St. Paul, Minnesota. Communities throughout Minnesota are developing strategies to manage this pest. DISCUSSION At the July 20, 2009 Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission meeting, Maplewood Tree Inspector Andrew Hovland will do a presentation on Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and answer questions. Mr. Hovland will address: 1. History of EAB in United States 2. Biology of insect 3. St. Paul EAB infestation 4. Signs and symptoms 5. Treatment options 6. Environmental impacts of insecticide treatment 7. EAB community preparedness plans Mr. Hovland and city staff will be developing a strategy to handle EAB in Maplewood and will present that to the ENR commission later this year. The purpose of the July 20 discussion and presentation is to educate commissioners on EAB and to gather preliminary input on this issue. Attached are several documents containing basic information on EAB. There is excellent information about EAB on university, state, and federal websites. For further information, you may want to start with the following sites: http://www.extension.umn.edu/issues/eab http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanaqement/eab.htm RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that Environmental and Natural Resources Commission review the information provided on EAB and provide preliminary input on this issue. Attachments: 1. Ash Tree Identification 2. Signs and Symptoms of the Emerald Ash Borer 3. Insects in Minnesota That May Be Confused with Emerald Ash Borer 4. Pest Alert - Emerald Ash Borer 5. Insecticide Option; Protecting Ash Trees from Emerald Ash Borer 6. Do I Have Emerald Ash Borer? Ash species attacked by emerald ash borer include green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), white (F, americana), black (F, nigra), and blue (F, quadrangulata), as well as horticul- tural cultivars of these species. Green and white ash are the most commonly found ash species in the Midwest with blue ash being rare. While other woody plants, su pricklyash, have "ash" in their nam ash, or Fraxinus species. Only true attack by emerald ash borer. To properly identify ash trees, use the following criteria: Branch and Bud Arrangement Branches and buds are directly across from each other and not staggered, When looking for opposite branching in trees, please consider that buds or limbs may die; hence not every single branch will have an opposite mate. Leaves Leaves are compound and composed of 5-11 leaflets, Leaflet margins may be smooth or toothed. The only other oppo- sitely branched tree with compound leaves is boxelder (Acer negundo). which almost always has three to five leaflets, White ash (on left) and green ash (on right) Bark On mature trees (left). the bark is tight with a distinct pattern of diamond-shaped ridges. On young trees (right). bark is relatively smooth. Seeds When present on trees, seeds are dry, oar-shaped samaras. They usually occur in dusters and typically hang on the tree until late fall, early winter. MICHIGAN STATE LLti-L'L....L R SIT Y EXTENSION Emerald Ash Borer Boxelder (Acer negundo) Exhibits opposite branching and compound leaves. However, has 3 to 5 leaflets (instead of 5 to 11) and the samaras are always in pairs instead of single like the ash. European Mountainash (Sorbus aucuparia) Leaves are compound with alternate (staggered) branch- ing. Tree bears clusters of creamy white flowers in May. Fruits are fleshy, red-orange berries. Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata) Leaves are compound with 5 to 7 leaflets, but the plant has an alternate branching habit. Fruit are hard-shelled nuts in a green husk. 'PauIWray;IOlWStaraUoivll(:$ily 'PauIWnly;;owaStataUIl;ve",ity Elm (Ulmus species) Branching is alternate and the leaves are simple with an unequal leaf base. 'PauIWray,lowaStamUfllversily 'PauIWra.lllowaStamUn;vulSily Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) Leaves are cornpound with 9 to 15 leaflets, but the plant has an alternate branching habit. Fruit is a large dark brown nut inside a green husk. 'PauIWray,Jow.1Stl1teUnl~lIf.'ity Authors: Kimberly Rebek and Mary Wilson "Pl!ulv&;'y,row.aStafllUnivellfity *www.forestryimages.org MICHIGAN SlA1E UNIVERSITY EXTENSION MSU is an affirmative-action, egual-opportunity institution. Michigcn State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, se;<:ual orientation, marital status, or family status. . Issued in further;ance of Eldension work in agricul- ture and home economics, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.s. Department of Agriculture. Thomas C. Coon, Extension director, Michigan State University, E. lansing, MI 48824. . This information is for educational purposes only. References to commercial products or trade names do not imply endorse- ment by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned. This bulletin becomes public property upon publication and may be printed verbatim with credit to M5U. Reprinting cannot be used to endorse or advertise a commercial product or company. New - 5:05 - 6,250 - KMF/lB Michigan State University Adult Michigan Sta!e Unive,sity . Bright, metallic green (Figs. A, B). . 1/2 inch long, flattened back (Figs. A, B). . Purple abdominal segments beneath wing covers. Canopy Dieback E.Rebek,MSU E.R<lbek,MSU . Begins in top one-third of canopy (Fig. D). . Progresses until tree is bare (Fig. E). MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION Emerald Ash Borer Larva D.C3pp<lert,MSU . Creamy white, legless (Fig. C). . Flattened, bell-shaped body segments (Fig. C). . Terminal segment bears a pair of small appendages. Epicormic Shoots . Sprouts grow from roots and trunk (Figs. F, G). . Leaves often J.Smith,USDAAPHISPPO larger than normal. J. Smith, USDA APHIS PPO Bark Splitting I J Smith, USDA APHIS ppQ A Sto,er,Mkn.Te<:h.Unlv. . Vertical fissures on bark (Fig. H) due to callous tissue formation (Fig. I). . Galleries exposed under bark split. Serpentine Galleries and D-shaped Exit Holes K D.CapP"ert,MSU D.Cappaert,MSU . Larval feeding galleries typically serpentine (Fig. J). . Galleries weave back and forth across the woodgrain. . Packed with frass (mix of sawdust and excrement). . Adults form D-shaped holes upon emergence (Fig. K). Increased Woodpecker Activity/Damage L M O.Cappaert,MSU Karen D'Angelo, MSUE . Several woodpecker species (Fig. L) feed on EAB larvae/pupae. . Peck outer bark while foraging (Fig. M). . Create large holes when extracting insects (Fig. M). MICHIGAN STAlE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION MSU is an affirmative-action, e'1ual-opportunity institution. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status. . Issued in furtherance of Extension work in agricul- ture and home economics, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.s, Department of Agriculture. Margaret A. Bethel, Extension director, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824. . This information is for educational purposes only. References to commercial products or trade names do not imply endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned. This bulletin becomes public property upon publication and may be printed verbatim with credit to MSU. Reprinting cannot be used to endorse or advertise a commercial product or company. New - 2:05 - 5M - KMF/LB @~liD alert; United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry NA-PR-02-04 Revised September 2008 Emerald Ash Borer A beetle from Asia, Agrilus pfanipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), was identified in July 2002 as the cause of widespread ash (Fraxinus spp.) tree decline and mortality in southeastern Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Larval feeding in the tissue between the bark and sapwood disrupts transport of nutrients and water in a tree, eventually causing branches and the entire tree to die. Tens of millions of ash trees in forest, rural, and urban areas have already been killed or are heavily infested by this pest. A. planipennis has been found throughout Michigan, across much of Ohio, and in parts of Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Infestations have also been found in more areas of Ontario and in the province of Quebec. The insect is likely to be found in additional areas as detection surveys continue. Evidence suggests that A. pfanipennis is generally established in an area for several years before it is detected. The broad distribution of this pest in the United States and Canada is primarily due to people inadvertently transporting infested ash nursery stock, unprocessed logs, firewood, and other ash commodities. Federal and state quarantines in infested states now regulate transport of these products. Identification Adult beetles are generally larger and brighter green (Fig. 1) than the native North American Agrilus species. Adults are slender, elongate, and 7.5 to 13.5 mm long. Males are smaller than females and have fine hairs, which the females lack, on the ventral side of the thorax. Adults are usually bronze, golden, or reddish green overall, with darker, metallic emerald green wing covers. The dorsal side of the abdomen is metallic purplish red and can be seen when the wings are spread (Fig. 2). The prothorax, the segment behind the head and to which the first pair of legs is attached, is slightly wider than the Figure 1. Adult emerald ash borer. head and the same width as the base of the wing covers. Larvae reach a length of 26 to 32 mm, are white to cream~colored, and dorso-ventrally flattened (Fig. 3). The brown head is mostly retracted into the prothorax, and only the mouthparts are visible. The abdomen has 10 segments, and the last segment has a pair of brown, pincer-like appendages. Biology A. pfanipennis generally has a 1-year life cycle. In the upper Midwest, adult beetles begin emerging in Mayor early June. Beetle activity peaks between mid June and early July, and continues into August. Beetles probably live for about 3 weeks, although some have survived for more than 6 weeks in the laboratory. Beetles generally are Figure 2. Purplish red abdomen on adult beetle. most active during the day, particularly when it is warm and sunny. Most beetles appear to remain in protected locations in bark crevices or on foliage during rain or high winds. Throughout their lives beetles feed on ash foliage, usually leaving small, irregularly shaped patches along the leaf margins. At least a few days of feeding are needed before beetles mate, and an additional 1 to 2 weeks of feeding may be needed before females begin laying eggs. Females can mate multiple times. Each female probably lays 30-60 eggs during an average lifespan, but a long-lived female may lay more than 200 eggs. Eggs are deposited individually in bark crevices or under bark flaps on the trunk or branches, and soon darken to a reddish brown. Eggs hatch in 7 to 10 days. Figure 3. Second, third, and fourth stage larvae. After hatching, first instar larvae chew through the bark and into the phloem and cambial region. Larvae feed on phloem for several weeks, creating serpentine (S-shaped) galleries packed with fine sawdust-like frass. As a larva grows, its gallery becomes progressively wider (Fig. 4). Beetle galleries often etch the outer sapwood. The length of the gallery generally ranges from 10 to 50 cm. Feeding is usually completed in autumn. Prepupal larvae overwinter in shallow in the outer sapwood or in the bark chambers, roughly 1 em deep, excavated on thick-barked trees. Pupation begins in Figure 4. Gallery of an emerald ash borer larva. Figure 5. D-shaped hole where an adult beetle emerged. Figure 6. Jagged holes left by woodpeckers feeding on larvae. Figure 7. Ash tree killed by emerald ash borer. Note the serpentine galleries. Figure 8. Epicormic branching on a heavily infested ash tree. late April or May. Newly eclosed adults often remain in the pupal chamber or bark for 1 to 2 weeks before emerging head-first through a D-shaped exit hole that is 3 to 4 mm in diameter (Fig. 5). Studies in Michigan indicate 2 years may be required for A. p/anipennis to develop in newly infested ash trees that are relatively healthy. In these trees, many A. planipennis overwinter as early instars, feed a second summer, overwinter as prepupae, and emerge the following summer. In trees stressed by physical injury, high A. p/anipennis densities, or other problems, all or nearly all larvae develop in a single year. Whether a 2-year life cycle will occur in warmer southern states is not yet known. Distribution and Hosts A. p/anipennis is native to Asia and is found in China and Korea. It is also reported in Japan, Mongolia, the Russian Far East, and Taiwan. In China, high populations of A. p/anipennis occur primarily in Fraxinus chinensis and F. rhynchophylla, usually when those trees are stressed by drought or injury. Other Asian hosts (F. mandshurica var. iaponica, Ulmus davidiana var. iaponica, /ug/ans mandshurica var. siebo/diana, and Pterocarya rhoifolia) may be colonized by this or a related species. In North America A. planipennis has attacked only ash trees. Host preference of A. planipennis or resistance among North American ash species may vary. Green ash (F. pennsylvanica) and black ash (F. nigra), for example, appear to be highly preferred, while white ash (F. americana) and blue ash (F. quadrangulata) are less preferred. At this time all species and varieties of native ash in North America appear to be at risk from this pest. Signs and Symptoms It is difficult to detect A. p/anipennis in newly infested trees because they exhibit few, if any, external symptoms. Jagged holes excavated by woodpeckers feeding on late instar or prepupal larvae may be the first sign that a tree is infested (Fig. 6). D-shaped exit holes left by emerging adult beeties may be seen on branches or the trunk, especially on trees with smooth bark (Fig 5). Bark may split vertically over larval feeding galleries. When the bark is removed from infested trees, the distinct, frass-filled larval galleries that etch the outer sapwood and phloem are readily visible (Fig. 4 and Fig. 7). An elliptical area of discolored sapwood, usually a result of secondary infection by fungal pathogens, sometimes surrounds galleries. As A. p/anipennis densities build, foliage wilts, branches die, and the tree canopy becomes increasingly thin. Many trees appear to lose about 30 to 50 percent of the canopy after only a few years of infestation. Trees may die after 3 to 4 years of heavy infestation (Fig. 7). Epicormic shoots may arise on the trunk or branches of the tree (Fig. 8), often at the margin of live and dead tissue. Dense root sprouting sometimes occurs after trees die. A. p/anipennis larvae have developed in branches and trunks ranging from 2.5 cm (1 inch) to 140 cm (55 inches) in diameter. Although stressed trees are initially more attractive to A. planipennis than healthy trees are, in many areas all or nearly all ash trees greater than 3 cm in diameter have been attacked. Resources For more information on the emerald ash borer and related topics... . Visit the following Web sites: Multi-agency Emerald Ash Borer Web Site: www.emeraldashborer.info USDA Forest Service: www.na.fs.fed.us/fhpjeabj USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: www.aphis.usda.govjplant_healthj . Contact your state Department of Agriculture, State Forester, "Or Cooperative Extension Office. ~~ Published by: USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry Newtown Square, PA 19073 www.na.fsJed.us '\ Federal Recycling Program ...... Printed on recycled paper. Prepared by: Deborah G. McCullough, professor, Departments of Entomology and Forestry, Michigan State University Noel F. Schneeberger, Forest Health Program leader, and Steven A. Katovich, forest entomologist, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service Photo credits: David L Cappaert -and Howard Russell, Michigan State University, www.forestryimages.org Steven A. Katovich, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org Edward Czerwinski, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, www.forestryimages.org USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Insecticide Options; Protecting Ash Trees from Emerald Ash Borer Table 1. Insecticide options for professionals and homeowners for controlling EAB that have been tested in multiple university trials. Some products may not be labeled for use in all states. Some of the listed products failed to protect ash trees when they were applied at labeled rates. Inclusion of a product in this table does not imply that it is endorsed by the authors or has been consistently effective for EAB control. See text for details regarding effectiveness. Insecticide Active Formulation Ingredient Professional Use Products Merit@(75WP, 75WSP,2F) Xytect™ (2F, 75WSP) IMA-jet@ Imidacloprid Imidacloprid Imidacloprid Imicide@ Imidacloprid P. ™ omter Imidacloprid Emamectin . Benzoate Bidrin@ TREE-age™ . Inject-A-Cide B@ Safari™ (20 SG) Dinotefuran Astro@ O ™ nyx Tempo@ Permethrin Bifenthrin Cyfl uthrin Sevin@ SL Carbaryl Application Method Soil injection or drench Soil inj ection or drench Trunk injection Trunk injection Trunk injection Trunk injection Trunk injection Systemic bark spray Preventive bark and . foliage cover sprays Homeowner Formulation Bayer Advanced™ Tree & Shrub Insect Control Imidacloprid Soil drench Recommended Timing mid-fall and/or mid- . to late spring mid-fall and/or mid- to late spring early-May to mid- June early-May to mid- June early-May to mid- June early-May to mid- . June early-May to mid- June early-May to mid- June 2 applications at 4 week intervals; first spray should occur when black locust is blooming (early May in southern Ohio to early June in mid- Michigan) mid-fall or mid- to late spring . Key Points and Summary Recommendations: . Insecticides can effectively protect ash trees from EAB. . Unnecessary insecticide applications waste money. IfEAB has not beer+ detected within 10-15 miles, your trees are at low risk. Be aware of the status ofEAB in your location. . Soil drenches and injections are most effective when made at the base of the trunk. Imidacloprid applications made in the spring or the fall have been shown to be equally effective. Soil injections should be no more than 2-4" deep, to avoid placing the insecticide beneath feeder roots. To facilitate uptake, systemic trunk: and soil insecticides should be applied when the soil is moist but not saturated or excessively dry. . Homeowners wishing to protect trees larger than 15 inches DBH should have their trees professionally treated. When treating very large trees under high pest pressure, it may be necessary to consider combining two treatment strategies, adding cover sprays. . Xytect™ soil treatments are labeled for application at a higher maximum rate than other imidacloprid formulations, and trees larger than 15 inch DBId can be treated using the highest labeled rate. Merit@ imidacloprid formulations are not labeled for use at this higher rate. When treating larger trees with Merit@ soil treatments, best results will be obtained with two applications per year. Imidacloprid TM . formulations for homeowners (Bayer Advanced Tree & Shrub Insect Control and other generic formulations) can be applied only once per year. . Emamectin benzoate is the only product tested to date that controls EAB for more than one year with a single application. . All treatment programs must comply with label restrictions on the amount of insecticide that can be applied per acre in a given year. . Trees exhibiting more than 40% canopy decline are unlikely to recover even if treated. Sources; "Insecticide Options for Protecting Ash Trees" from EAB web site; WWw.emeraldashborer.info . Ed Haves, DNR, Forest Health Specialist, ISA Certified Arborist, Rochester, June 2009 Do I Have Emerald Ash Borer? 1) I think a tree may be infested with EAB.Go to step #3. 2) I suspect I have seen an emerald ash borer. Go to step #5. 3) Is my tree an ash? Review this guide: UI'IIVf,Il;>rr-';OI'M!l'1tlllsor" ._,_n:tI...,. .~~l)~~ t,' ' \ AGRiCiJITU"RE '-"<;-~"'- ...~,,,.,,,,,,,,.....,.~., If yes, go to #4. If no, go to #7. www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/extlashtreeid.pdf 4) Does niy ash tree have symptoms of. emerald ash borer? Review this guide: If yes,goto #5. if no, go to #7. 5) Are the symptoms or insects EAB look-alikes? Review this guide: If no, go to #6. If yes, go to #7. tAa'Ywison.I.i$U' &t~nl>1on. E~ ~J;, M~:WS'" St.i~ v~fvoni~ o.,p~.oi E"lomOicgy www.emeraldashborer.info/files/E-2938.pdf www.mda.state..mn.us/news/publications/extleablookalikes. pdf "'" WilI<l1'1,MSU&umIlOll..EIl~RobGl:. msnu.U_ t.ofEntornd 6) It could be EAB. Contact the U of M Forest Resources Extension to find an EAB First Detector near you: treeinfo@umn.edu 612-624-3020 7) It isn't EAB; so, what is it? Visit the University of Minnesota Extension "What's Wrong With My Plant" website to diagnose the problem. FQRESl RESOURCES EXTENSION .M. ",::c':-;':" U'''~''''''T 'HilI-II'" .~" 1'_ .._r';;;;; f"'~"""",*""'" 'll'''''''"''''' r,..,__ _..'" 1-""'_ TllIsSc:doll www..forestrv.umn.edu/extension/index.html r;p;,'df'~ir.'g .' . '.' <. JJ:~..!:iJ..l.i.1.2::~}L!J...LlJ~~c'-', l:r1bttts lVI'ong with illYQ"flallt? Pi, .d"k'UO 1< o:!~;;'I'wl\" I",~ ~"",.",., '" . '-ir,',".I<II., n'",""'e~'~l'!']!(~ i"t'l' 1""j <.^.i ~,,'i;"" C"."," ~', 'I''''::;, o}'~""", 'oj"1(I;,in~ "",,,. . www.extension.umn.edu/qardeninfo/diaqnostics/deciduous/ash/index.html ,-,.~,.,,,I,,)h'Jf,,,,,,..>JtlPl,,O''';.''_'' t"<'~c"'<~'" ""'r.l~" ti\I1JUl!lll In accordance with the American Disabilities Act, an alternative form of this communication is available upon request TTY: 1-800-627-3529. Equal Opportunity Employer Agenda Item 5.b. MEMORANDUM DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Storm Water Management: National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) and Local Storm Water Management Plan July 15, 2009 for the July 20 ENR Meeting TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION One of the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission 2009 goals is storm water management. The two main areas of storm water management regulations the city deals with is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is a permitting program required by the federal Clean Water Act, and the local surface water management plan, which is a plan required by state statute that focuses on programs to address priority storm water management concerns connected to land use planning and official controls. The attached storm water management flow chart describes how these two programs interact with one another (Attachment 1). DISCUSSION NPDES: As part of the NPDES permit, the city is required to prepare an annual report by June 30 and hold a public hearing detailing the progress made in the previous year toward satisfying the requirements of the permit. On June 22, 2009, the city council reviewed the report and held the required public hearing (refer to the attached June 9 staff report - Attachment 2). No public comment was given during the public hearing and the city council adopted the plan. City staff will present the findings of the report to the ENR Commission on July 20 for review and comment. Local. Surface Water Management Plan: The ENR Commission reviewed the city's draft storm water management plan as part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (refer to Executive summary attached - Attachment 3). Storm water management plans must comply with the following criteria: 1. Runoff Rate. Runoff rates for the proposed activity shall not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-year, 10-year, and 1 OO-year critical storm events, and runoff rates may be restricted to less than the existing rates when the capacity of downstream conveyance systems is limited. 2. Runoff Volume. Storm water runoff volume retention shall be achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from a one inch rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. The required stormwater runoff volume reduction shall be calculated as follows: Required Volume (ft3) = Impervious surfaces (ft2) x 1.0 (in) x 0.9 coefficient x 1/12 (ft/in). 3. Water Quality. Developments shall incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction best management practices (BMPs) to achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated by a National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water quality storm (2.5" rainfall). Runoff volume reduction BMPs may be considered and included in the calculations showing compliance with achieving the 90% total suspended solids (TSS) removal requirement. Water quality calculations, documentation and/or water quality modeling shall be submitted to verify compliance with the standard. The city's draft storm water management plan covers this information; however, the city's ordinances and rules should be updated to ensure compliance with these criteria. The implementation projects listed in the surface water management plan on page 10-9 of the attached executive summary states that the city will update our storm water ordinances to ensure consistency with all watershed district rules and compliance with the above-mentioned criteria. In particular, the city should review all watershed district rules, city ordinances and standards pertaining to storm water, and begin drafting a comprehensive storm water management ordinance. City staff will present the next steps in this process to the ENR Commission on July 20 for review and comment. RECOMMENDATION Review the attached documents and staff presentations during the July 20 ENR Commission meeting and be prepared to discuss implementation strategies for the city's storm water management programs. Attachments: 1. Storm Water Management Program Flow Chart 2. June 9, 2009, NPDES Staff Report 3. May 2009 Draft Storm Water Management Plan Executive Summary 2 /{tto..dlv1'\ef\t STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NPDES Permit Program . Clean Water Act . Administered by MPCA in MN Focus on Protecting and Improving Water Quality . Total Maximum Daily Loads . Minn. Rule 70S0 Water Quality Standards Three Parts: . Industrial Permits . Construction Permits . MS4 (Municipal) Permits* MS4 Permit . Six Minimum Control Measures . Best Management Practices . Measurable Goals Local Surface Water Management Planning . Minn. Rule 8410 (BWSR) . Minn. Stat. 103B Covers many water topics: . Surface water quality . Groundwater quality . Floodplain and shoreland . Wetlands . Fish and wildlife habitat Water QualityTargets . Local Goals . TMDLs / State Standards . Non-Degradation Combined Program Official Controls / Ordinances . Development / Redevelopment Implementation Program . Capital Improvements . Administrative I Education . Operation and Maintenance A-Itctt.I')\"I')e At L AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director NPDES Phase II Annual Report {Public Meeting - 7:60p.m. June 9, 2009 INTRODUCTION As part of Maplewood's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the City is required to prepare an annual report detailing the progress made in the previous year toward satisfying the requirements of the permit. The City is also required to hold a public meeting on the annual report to solicit comments from the public and address all comments written and oral in the final report submitted to the MPCA. BACKGROUND A 1987 amendment to the federal Clean Water Act required implementation of a two- phase comprehensive national program to address pollution from stonm-water runoff. This program was named the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Since 1991, NPDES Phase I regulated cities with populations of 100,000 or more. NPDES Phase II took effect in 2003, regulating cities with populations of 10,000 or more. Maplewood was among a group of approximately 220 cities in Minnesota affected by NPDES Phase II. The State of Minnesota regulates the disposal of stormwater by a State Disposal System (SDS) permit. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) administers both NPDES and SDS permits in Minnesota and issues combined NPDES/SDS-MS4 stormwater permits. In March 2008, the city submitted its permit application to the MPCA. The permit cycle runs five years. The permit application required the City to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The MPCA has established six minimum control measures that the SWPPP must address. They are: . Public Education and Outreach . Public Participation and Involvement . Illicit Discharge and Detection and Elimination . Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control . Post-Construction Stormwater Management . Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping Maplewood's SWPPP defines the Best Management Practices (BMPs) the City intends to use to minimize pollution from stormwater runoff for each of the six minimum control measures. The City's permit and SWPPP have been available for public viewing at the Engineering and Community Development counter and were also posted on the city's website. Articles posted on the website and published in the City newsletter encouraged residents to review the permit and SWPPP and submit any comments they may have. A dedicated phone line and email address was established to receive these comments. As of June 15,2008, no comments regarding the SWPPP had been received. Staff has prepared a draft of the City's annual report and will make a short presentation on the City's SWPPP and the progress made toward the permit goals in the previous year. The floor should then be opened to the public for any comments they wish to make regarding the permit or draft annual report. All comments will be recorded and addressed in the final version of the annual report. When all public comments have been addressed and incorporated into the report, the report will be finalized. At that point, the report and executive summary will be submitted to MPCA. The deadline for the annual report is June 30, 2009. CHANGES TO FUTURE NPDES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS - NON DEGRADATION PLANS The City of Maplewood is one of thirty cities in the State that is required to submit a Non- Degradation Plan as part of the NPDES permitting process. The MPCA will be responsible for reviewing the Non-Degradation Plans and determining compliance. The selection criterion that was used to select these thirty city's was based on community size and growth experienced by the community. In selecting these thirty MS4 cities, MPCA is assuming that a cities discharge is significant and has the potential for increased loading of one or more pollutants. The Non-Degradation Plan will require cities to develop a plan to address new or expanded discharges (runoff) and bring these discharges back to 1988 levels. Where increases in runoff or pollutant loading has occurred due to new. or expanded discharges from stormwater runoff, the plan must identify and include retrofit and mitigation options or BMPs that reduce these discharges back to .1988 levels. To meet this requirement, cities will have to perform loading assessments using water quality modeling for discharges and pollutants. When complete, the model will be used to determine where stormwater runoff has resulted in new or expanded discharges and then to determine what strategies can be used to bring these discharges back to 1988 levels. The primary goal of this stormwater permit is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 'Waters of the State" through management and treatment of urban stormwater runoff. To meet this goal, the City of Maplewood must develop, implement, and enforce a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the City. As in the previous MS4 permit, public education and outreach activities are key in obtaining compliance with the permit requirements. The City must implement a public education program to distribute educational materials to the community and conduct outreach activities in the community. These educational program activities will focus on impacts of stormwater discharges and what steps the residents and businesses can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. 2 The initial Non-Degradation application was submitted to the MPCA in June of 2007. Maplewood's Non-Degradation plan was put on Public Notice by the MPCA and no comments were received during the sixty-day comment period. In order for the City to achieve compliance with the MS4 permit/Non-Degradation requirements, the City will be required to spend substantial additional monies in the future. Additional monies will be required for infrastructure upgrades and these improvement requests will be presented to council pending the results of the findings from the report. Staff will also be updating the council on. the progress with the requirements of the Non-Degradation Plan. Staff has included Best Management Practices (BMP) Summary Sheets that speak directly to these requirements listed above. The summary sheets describe the related BMP and also set measurable goals aimed at meeting these requirements. Timelines are also established to complete these goals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that following the presentation on the City's SWPPP and NPDES permit annual report and the update on the Non-Degradation Plan, the City Council open the floor for public comment. When all public comments have been addressed and incorporated into the report, the report will be finalized. At that point, the report and executive summary will be submitted to MPCA. The deadline for the annual report is June 30, 2009. Attachments: 1. BMP Summary Sheets 3 .-. -~._-;-_.-~ Attachment 1 City of Maplewood, Minnesota II. SUMMARY OF SWPPP Background The City of Maplewood (City) is located east of St. Paul, in the east-central portion of Ramsey County. Maplewood shares borders with St. Paul to the south, Roseville and Little Canada to the west, Vadnais Heights and White Bear Lake to the north and North St. Paul, Oakdale and Woodbury to the east. A small portion of Maple wood borders Washington County (at the City of Newport) to the south. The City covers approximately 11,500 acres (18 square miles) of land consisting of a mix of residential, light and heavy manufacturing, commercial, industrial, right- of-way, lakes/water, open space and park lands. This submittal includes the Notice of Intent (NOl) for coverage under the NPDES MS4 Phase II Permit, a sununary of the receiving waters within the City and the existing storm water management program and a listing of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). BMP sununary sheets for each of the six minimwn control measures are included. Receiving Waters As stated in the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (September 1990), almost all of the storm water runoff from the City is discharged through the City of St. Paul and eventually into the Mississippi River. One small area (approximately 200 acres) at the south end of Maplewood discharges to Newport and a second (approximately 100 acres) in the northeast portion of the City drains east to Oakdale or south into Silver Lake. Some of the storm water runoffis directed into adjacent MS4s before returning to Maplewood's drainage system. Maplewood contains several waters (lakes and streams) that receive storm water runoff. Of the 18 square miles within the City, approximately 10 square miles drain to Lake Phalen. Approximately 7 square miles drain to smaller drainage systems throughout the City and 1 square mile in the western portion of outlets discharge to Trout Brook. The list below identifies the waters in Maplewood where storm sewer system outfalls are or may be located. Known outfalls to these waters are identified in the Outfall Map. Beaver Lake Battle Creek Fish Creek Lake Gervais Keller Lake Kohlman Lake Phalen Lake Round Lake Silver Lake Wakefield Lake City of Maple wood, MN NPDES Phase II NOI and SWPPP Page 6 Permit No. MN R 040000 ... __ . . _. - 0.0. . -~ _ _. ---.---.-.....-.---.- . _.... . d.. .... ...-.-...'-'..-..--,--- ----- - . .._.. '.. ...m_ Existing Storm Water Management Program Key City staff for SWPPP implementation activities report to the Director of Public Works, and are primarily part of the Engineering or Street Maintenance Departments. The City has more than 20 staff members that have responsibilities under the SWPPP. Our staff is currently involved in storm water-related activities ranging from development plan review and construction site inspections to street/storm water practice maintenance. The City currently follows a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (1991) to address water resources related issues within the City. In addition, the City follows the requirements of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Plan (May 2005) which has jurisdiction throughout most of Maplewood. The City has established a stonn water utility fund to provide dedicated funding for implementation activities. BMPs for the Six Minimum Control Measures The table which follows ontlines BMPs that form the City's SWPPP. la-I 2a-I,2b.l, 20--1, Ie-I Ib-l, Ie-I, Id-l 2a.I,2b-1, 2e-I,le-1 Jc.2 Jc-3,3d.1 3b-1 3a-1 3e-l,30-1 3b-1 1-01-R I-02-R 1-02-R 3-01-R 3-02-R 3-03.R 3-04-R 3-05 3-06 3-07 City Storm Water Education Program to Distribute Materials Annual Public/City Council Meeting Ci Newsletter and Website Partner with Local Watershed District Education Programs Information Kiosks Ma lewood Nature Center Education Program Environmental Uti' Fund. Storm Water Utili Annual Public/City Council Meeting Public Education and Outreach Pro am City.wide Rainwater Garden Pro' eel o en S ace Committee Meetin ,Environmental Committee Meetin Maplewood Nature Center Partie' ation Program Public Education & Outreach Program Re ato Pro mtoProbibitNon-StormWaterDisehar es into the MS4 Storm S tern Outfull and BMP Ma illicit Dischar e and Dete<.1:ion Program Phos horns Fertilizer Ordinance Assist Ramsey Coun lSTS Program Used oiJ/household hazardous waste! City of Maple wood, MN NPDES Phase IT Nor and SWPPP Page 7 Permit No. MN R 040000 1c-4 4a-1 4b-1 4d-1 4b-l,4o-1, 4f-1 40-1 1c-6 3d-1,6a-1 6b-2, 6b-3, 6b-4 6b-5 6b-6, 6b- 7 6a-2 6a-1 6b-5, 6b-7 4-01-R 4-02-R 4-03 4-04-R 4-05-R 6-01-R 6-02-R 6-03-R 6-04-R 6-05-R 6-06 6-07 6-08 Public Education & Ontreach Program Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance Local Watershed District Permit Programs Develo ment Plan Review Process Construction Site 1nspection and Street Sweeping Follow-up Public Educatiou & Outreach Program City Staff Training and information Program Structural BMP and Outfalllnspectiou Program Storm Water System Maintenance Program Develo ment of Storm System BMP Database Street Sweeping Program S ill Prevention and Control Pro Storm Water Pond Maintenance Pro City of Maple wood, MN NPDES Phase IT NO! and SWPPP Page 8 Pennit No. MNR 040000 BMP Summary Sheet MS4 Name: City ofMaptewood Permit Condition: N.D Section 303(d) listings Unique BMP Identification Number: N.D ~ I BMP Title: Impaired Waters Review Process BMP Description: The City will review discharges from OUl' MS4 system to impaired waters, as defined by the current USEP A approved 303 (d) list. In this review, the City will: . Identify the impaired watel'S that are likely to be impacted by the MS4' s stormwater discharge. . Use a combination of storm sewer maps and field surveys to identifY potentiat stormwater discharges to impaired waters . Delineate the watershed area(s) that contribute to the above discharge(s) . Evaluate the hydrology, land use and other characteristics of the watershed area(s) that may impact the impaired water as a result of a stormwater discharge from our MS4 Based on the review process above, we will determine if any changes to the existing stormwater system or BMPs are needed to minimize the impact of discharges from our MS4 to the impaired water(s). Ifsuch modifications are deemed necessary, we will modify our SWPPP and submit those modifications to the MPCA with the current year's annual report. In our review, we will consider timing and long and short term costs. The basis for OUr decisions will be documented in our program records and will be kept atong with other records associated with the MS4 permit. A narrative summary of this review will then be prepared, and identifY any associated SWPPP revisions that were made. Measurable Goals: 1. Prepare an impaired waters list. The list will address impaired waters within our jurisdictional boundaries, as well as those outside our boundaries likely to have an impact as a result of receiving stormwater discharge from the City; information about the stormwater discharges each impaired water receives from the City as is available and a summary of information (studies, data, plans) that currently exist for each impaired water. 2. Update storm system roap. BMP 3a-l map will be updated to include impaired waters listed in goal I. 3. ~ Complete a written summary. Summary will include conclusions reached during our review, the decision making process used to determine what SWPPP revisions may be needed, and a projected schedule and timeline to incorporate any necessary changes into the SWPPP, if needed. Timeline/Implementation Schedule: 1. Annually 2. Annually 3. Annually Specific Components and Notes: This process is to be reassessed annually over the course of the permit cycle. As new 303(d) lists with additional impaired waters listed are published in the future, the City will review changes to the list and conduct the necessary review of additional listed waters likely to be impacted by the MS4's stormwater discharges. When an approved TMDL is finalized, the City intends to comply with the resulting permit requirements. Responsible Party for this BMP: Name: Deputy Director of Public Works Department: Public Works Phone: 6512492330 E-mail: Du Wayne.Konewko@ci.maplewood.mn.us city of Maple wood, MN NPDES Phase IT Nor and SWPPP Page 52 Permit No. MN R 040000 ...,. Additional BMP Summary Sheet MS4 Name: City ofMaplewood, Minnesota Minimum Control Measure: NA Unique BMP Identification Number: X.I *BMP Title: Nondegradation for Selected MS4s *BMP Description: The City will prepare a Loading Assessment and Nondegradation Report as per Part X, Appendix D, Sections B & C of the MS4 General Pennit. The City will follow the public participation process as per Part X, Appendix D, Section D of the MS4 General Pennit. After consideration ofthe input received during the public participation process, the City will prepare and submit the materials required in Part X. Appendix D. Section E of the MS4 General Pennit. During the MPCA review, notice, and preliminary determination processes, the City will work with the MPCA, if appropriate, to respond to comments and/or revise the submittal materials to prepare them for final approval. After final determination by the MPCA, the City will modify the SWPPP as per the approved submittal materials and as needed to meet the nondegradation requirements. *Measurable Goals: 1. The City will prepare and submit materials to meet the requirements listed above. 2. The City will respond to and coordinate with the MPCA, as appropriate, during the MPCA review, notice, and preliminary determination processes. 3. Modify the SWPPP as per the approved modifications and as needed to meet the nondegradation requirements. *TimeliuelImplementation Schedule: 1. The City will prepare and submit the required materials listed above by December 1, 2009. 2. The City will respond to and coordinate with the MPCA, as appropriate, during theMPCA review, notice, and preliminary determination processes. 3. After the submittal materials are approved by the MPCA, the City will modify the SWPPP, as per the approved modifications and as needed to meet the nondegradation requirements, in a timely manner. Specific Components and Notes: *Responsible Party for this BMP: Name: Deputy Director of Public Works Department: Public Works Phone: 651.249.2330 E-mail: duwavne.konewko@ci.maplewood.rnn.us City of Maple wood, MN NPDES Phase II Nor and SWPPP Page 51 Permit No. MN R 040000 AttQchr'l1er'\t :3 *MAPLEWOOD -, r ,r ii'l >-.,. Ii; iR1t. ! N ftt oc., $j r[} , "':}, rOQeTH!IIWI!GAN Surface Water Management Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Maplewood (City) has completed a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP or Plan) to establish a more functional and up-to-date guide for future surface water management activities throughout the City. The Plan builds on the City's previous plan, its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) program and related Non-Degradation Plan and addresses several key issues related to storm water management that the City is likely to encounter in the coming years. This executive summary provides a brief description of the purpose and basis for this updated Plan, followed by a presentation of the overriding goals that were used to guide development ofthe Plan. This executive summary closes by highlighting the key issues the City intends to address as part of this Plan. The full Plan is provided as a separate document. Purpose ofthe Plan The purpose of the Plan is to establish the framework of a comprehensive program that does more than simply protect and improve the quality of existing water resources within the City. The Plan also recognizes that development and redevelopment must and will continue well into the future, and will serve as a guide for City staff to follow as they evaluate the potential impacts of a given project on these quality resources. The Plan will serve as a toolbox for the City that includes the best available water resource data at the time it was completed, up-to-date policies and design standards, and a process to adjust goals and policies as new data is collected and evaluated or as complimentary programs change. With this guidance specific to surface water as well as the broader guidance provide in the City's Comprehensive Plan, this Surface Water Management Plan will serve to: . Provide for the use, management, improvement and protection of the City's surface water resources . Contribute to the quality of life by preserving and enhancing the high environmental quality of the community . Protect public investments and private property related to or affected by surface water . Help to understand the larger context of surface water management issues in relation to land use and land use policy . Balance environmental protection and enhancement needs with economic needs and capabilities . Meet regulatory requirements City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10-1 May 2009 Basis for the Plan There are two primary programs that establish the regulatory need to update the City's Surface Water Management Plan. First, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.201 to 103B.255 and Minnesota Rule, Chapter 8410 comprise the State's Metropolitan Surface Water Management Program (MSWMP). These Statutes and Rules require the preparation of watershed plans by watershed management organizations (WMOs) and the preparation of local (i.e., city) water management plans that are consistent with the respective WMO plans. Second, upon adoption by Council, the policies and standards presented in this Plan become a part of the City's overall Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the MSWMP is that through policies and thoughtful program implementation, goals for proper water and wetland resource management can be realized and water quality can be protected. Through proper planning and implementation, informed decisions can be made which allow for the protection and/or enhancement of water quality, prevention of ground water degradation, and reduction of local flooding. A third regulatory program, very much related to the goals, policies and standards of this Plan, is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Storm Water Permit Program (Phase II Program). While this program is not directly a driving force for updating the City's Plan, similarities between the MSWMP and NPDES Phase II programs are such that the City intends to realize efficiencies in managing the two separate programs as a single comprehensive surface water management program. The NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permit Program is a federal regulatory program that requires owners of Municipally Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and apply for the permit with the administrative agency. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) administers the MS4 program in the state. The City submitted their original permit application and SWPPP on March 10, 2003, and submitted an updated SWPP in 2006 to comply with the MPCA program requirements. The City has completed their NPDES program in conformance to the SWPPP since submittal in 2003, including conducting annual public meetings and completing a Loading Assessment and Nondegradation Report (November 2007) as required by the MS4 Permit. This SWMP incorporates the best management practices (BMPs) that were identified in the City's 2006 SWPPP as and Appendix to the Plan and also identifies several specific projects that are not specified in the City's NPDES Program SWPPP. Surface water management programs throughout the country, state and locally have seen significant changes in recent years and are expected to continue evolving as the regulatory programs expand and/or change. For example, the impaired waters and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies reaching as far downstream as Lake Pepin, changes to the Wetland Conservation Act and a shift towards lower impact development approaches will likely have some ongoing impact on how Maplewood manages surface waters in the future. One local example is in the recent adoption of volume reduction and infiltration requirements by the City as part of the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements (MMA TI) project. The City established a 1-inch infiltration standard for developments and city projects proposed in the area as a first step towards achieving enhanced storm water treatment. The local watershed organizations soon followed suit in adopting similar 1-inch infiltration and volume control standards. City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10-2 May 2009 Plan Overview The Full Plan contains an Introduction (Section I), a brief Background and History and description of the existing physical environment (Section II); specific Goals and Policies (Section III) developed by the City; specific information regarding key Surface Water Resources within the City (Section IV) and an Implementation Plan (Section V) that summarizes some of the ongoing management activities and future projects for the protection and enhancement of the City's water and wetland resources. Using the goals summarized in Table 10-1, the Plan is intended to guide surface water and water resource management activities through about the year 2030. Table 10-1. Maplewood Storm Water Management Plan Goals Goal Goal Goal Statement Number 1 Water Quality Enhance the water quality of Maplewood's surface waters relative to current conditions and strive to achieve water quality improvements. Runoff Preserve, maintain, utilize and enhance the storm water storage and 2 Management and detention systems to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff, control flooding, protect public health and safety, and to minimize Flood Control necessary public capital expenditures. Achieve no net loss of wetlands, including acreage, functions and 3 Wetlands values. Where practicable, improve the functions, values, biodiversity and acreage of wetlands and their buffer areas. Erosion and Protect capacity of storm water system, prevent flooding and 4 Sediment Control maintain water quality by preventing erosion and sedimentation from occurring, and correct existing erosion and sedimentation problems. Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater resources and develop a cooperative program with the watershed district to identify 5 Groundwater infiltration-sensitive areas. Protect the public health, safety and welfare through a comprehensive ISTS ordinance that requires properly designed and maintained ISTS systems. Education and Increase public and city official awareness, understanding and 6 Public Involvement involvement in water and natural resource management issues. 7 Financing Establish and maintain funding sources to finance surface water management activities. Preserve function and performance of public infrastructure through continued implementation of a maintenance and inspection program. Maintenance and Develop a city-maintenance plan for the inspection of all ponds, 8 Inspection outlet structures and inlet facilities and consider initiating a pond delta removal program. Such a program should consider improvements to reduce sediment loads to ponds, wetlands and lakes to help prioritize critical improvement areas. Regulatory Maintain primary responsibility for managing water resources at the 9 local level but continue coordination and cooperation with other Responsibility agencies and organizations. City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10-3 May 2009 Though long term in focus, the Plan has numerous future decision points related to recommended capital improvements and ongoing inspection, maintenance and monitoring activities. The Plan was developed recognizing the need for proper land utilization and growth and, at the same time, emphasizing the need to prioritize management actions and decisions based on the assigned category of a receiving water body (i.e., lake or wetland). This updated SWMP addresses each of the required elements in Minnesota Statutes and Rules and is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's guidelines for Water Management Plans. The Plan is also consistent with the watershed districts having jurisdiction in portions of Maplewood: the Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District (RWMWD); the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD); and the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). The criteria set forth in this Plan, as a minimum, establish the degree of performance necessary to achieve the City's water quality and water quantity management goals and meet the applicable regulatory requirements. These criteria are not intended to dictate or preempt the design process, but rather provide guidelines to proper development and redevelopment. Key Water Resources Issues This Plan identifies several key issues related to storm water management that the City is likely to encounter in the coming years. These issues include: meeting the requirements of nondegradation standards and impaired waters programs; addressing localized flooding problems and meeting the challenges of an increased need for maintenance of the public and private stormwater system and coordinating efforts with natural resource improvement areas to find more cost-effective approaches. The issues will require a need for continued long-term financial commitments and likely increased funding for the surface water management program into the future. Water Quality and Impaired Waters This Plan is being completed in conjunction with the City's 2008 update to its Comprehensive Plan. As part of this Comprehensive Plan, the City is conducting a preliminary evaluation of the entire storm water system and building on recent efforts under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Municipally Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit program, including the Loading Assessment and Non-Degradation Report (Non-Deg Report) completed by the City in November 2007. The Non-Deg Report concluded that . The City will experience a reduction in total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) load by the year 2020, but will experience an increase in the runoff volume. . The reduction in loading of TP and TSS through 2020 relates directly to continuing to implement the 1-inch volume control standard on new and redevelopment projects. . Runoff Volume reduction is a relatively new area to the storm water management arena. Potential adverse effects are still being studied and debated. The most common impacts cited in connection with the runoff volume increase are a pronounced degradation of the natural stream banks and more frequent inundation of the wetlands. No significant issues were known at the time of finalizing the Non-Deg report. Since completion of the Non-Deg Report, input has been obtained from staff and watershed representatives that there may be some volume-related issues to address in south Maplewood and other localized areas. City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10-4 May 2009 Relative to impaired waters, Maplewood has twelve waters on the 2008 draft list prepared by the MPCA and submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Table 10-2a provides a summary of the affected use and impairments for each of these waters. Table 10-2a. Draft 2008 TMDL Listed Impaired Waters in Maplewood Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs) in Fish Tissue Aquatic Recreation NutrientlEutrophication Yes Biological Indicators Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs) in Fish Tissue Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs) in Fish Tissue Aquatic Recreation NutrientlEutrophication Yes Biological Indicators Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs) in Fish Tissue Aquatic Recreation NutrientlEutrophication Yes Biological Indicators Aquatic Recreation NutrientlEutrophication Yes Biological Indicators Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs) in Fish Tissue Aquatic Consumption Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs) in Fish Tissue Aquatic Recreation NutrientlEutrophication Yes Biological Indicators Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue Aquatic Life Chloride Aquatic Recreation N utrientlEutrophication Biological Indicators Aquatic Recreation NutrientlEutrophication Biological Indicators Aquatic Consumption Mercury in Fish Tissue 10-5 May 2009 City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan Of the listed pollutants in Table 10-2a, the City is really only in a position to address the nutrient (i.e., phosphorus) impairments and the chloride impairments as listed in Table 10-2b. PFO impairments are still very new to the impaired waters program and the City will need to maintain contact with MPCA and the local watershed organizations as more information is available on the plan for these impairments. According to the MPCA's Statewide Mercury TMDL Study, most of the mercury in Minnesota's fish comes from atmospheric deposition, with approximately 90 percent originating from outside the state. Because mercury has regional TMDL implications, little effort will be placed on TMDL recommendations related to mercury for these waters as part ofthis planning effort. The City will continue to review recommendations for mercury that may be offered by EPA and/or MPCA to see if the regional approach to mercury has any future implications on the City. More detail on the progress of the statewide mercury TMDL process can be found on the MPCA's website. Table 10-2b. Impaired Waters Focus in Maplewood Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Yes Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Yes Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Yes Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Yes Chloride Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators .(Phosphorus) Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Phosphorus) Statewide, approximately 8 percent of Minnesota's river miles and 14 percent of Minnesota's lakes have been tested for pollution problems. Approximately 40 percent of those tested are polluted with human and animal waste, phosphorus, suspended solids, mercury and other pollutants. As more of the states' surface waters are tested for pollution problems, it is reasonable to assume that more waters will be listed as impaired in subsequent biennial cycles. When Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are completed, the TMDLs will likely be used by the MPCA and local entities to further prioritize management actions and establish additional regulatory controls. The City will consider the listing of the lakes in Table 10-2b in future management decisions and actively manage the activities in the contributing watersheds to limit the delivery of these pollutants (primarily nutrients, sediment and chlorides) to these waters. Infiltration best management practices have a higher level of total phosphorus removal than the traditional wet stormwater ponds and the City's infiltration requirement will help with the reduction of phosphorus entering the receiving waters. City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10-6 May 2009 Floodina and Maintenance of the Svstem The City will need to continue to address localized flooding areas to protect life and property and reduce the burden of maintaining the system. As weather trends are showing higher intensity storm events, the potential for localized flooding will continue, if not increase. Along with this realization is that it places a higher level of urgency on the need to maintain the storm water conveyance system so that it functions well during the design events as well as extreme events. While some debris blockages of pipes and structures will almost certainly continue to occur, the efforts placed on identifying problem areas and conducting maintenance and/or installing physical improvements, will reduce the potential for problems or reduce the extent of damages. Coordinatinq Efforts with Natural Resources The City of Maplewood intends to achieve its vision and goals for natural resources using a comprehensive approach. Coordinating surface water management needs and opportunities with natural resources management and improvement projects will help to maximize the overall environmental benefits and the return on City investments. There are four main parts to the Natural Resource Plan. . Natural Area Greenways. Natural Area Greenways are large contiguous areas of habitat that cross ownership boundaries. They protect and expand ecosystem services and habitat for species that are gone or are disappearing from the City. . Local Habitats. Local Habitats are individual natural areas and backyard habitat connections. They serve the needs of people wanting to enjoy and learn about wild habitat near their homes and also provide ecosystem services and wildlife habitat locally. . Active Parks and Trails. Active Parks and Trails connect greenways and preserves but also give people places to play sports, picnic, and bike. . Natural Resource Issues. Other natural resources issues are addressed city-side through individual programs. Partnerships and Fundina The final critical area of focus will be the continued close coordination with the local watershed organizations, Ramsey County, and other project-specific partners to take full advantage of opportunities to gain water quality improvements and enhance other natural resources at the same time. These efforts will be needed and a priority for the City on public capital improvement projects, storm water system and utility maintenance activities, public outreach and education activities and on private development projects. This cooperative approach will allow the City to leverage the limited funding that is currently available. Maintaining a financing strategy for surface water improvements relates very closely to the cooperative approach to projects and activities. The City will need to continue using a combination of environmental utility fees, special assessments, connection charges, and storm water program grant funds to realize the goals of this Plan. The City will need to evaluate the need for increases in storm water utility charges that serves as the primary dedicated source for funding the wide range of storm water program activities and capital projects. City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10-7 May 2009 Implementation Plan Development of the implementation program follows the guidelines in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, the WMOs and Metropolitan Council. City staff identified a wide range of issues or problems related to the various goal sections, developed solutions or approaches to addressing each of the issues, and development specific action steps, including identification of possible resources, measurements, approximate schedules and planning level costs. The overall implementation program includes a mixture of capital improvement projects, studies, ongoing maintenance, inspection, monitoring and other management activities recommended over the next 10 or more years. Estimated planning-level costs of recommended actions are provided with a cautionary note that they are not intended to set unrealistic expectations of the actual costs of projects and/or activities. The costs provided are intended to serve as an order- of-magnitude look at what the activity may require. Notations are also provided where the activity can be completed by City staff. The City's water bodies and wetlands are truly exceptional resources for City residents and thus water quality is one of the priority areas for future program efforts. City lakes and water resources offer a range of recreational opportunities and some are truly exceptional resources from a water quality perspective. Others are impaired by various pollutants and have a reduced value due to those impairments. One of the most recognized and valued resources is Lake Phalen. Phalen is one of the four lakes in the City not impaired for excess nutrients (i.e., phosphorus). One of the City's challenges in the years ahead will be to successfully implement this Plan to maintain the quality of lakes like Phalen, and at the same time work towards improvements in the seven lakes that are impaired by excess nutrients (phosphorus). Water Quantity, or flooding, issues are another key area for the City to focus efforts on in the coming years. While no major flooding-related issues exist, there are several areas throughout the City where localized flooding can be addressed by infrastructure improvements associated with street reconstruction and/or development projects. These localized flooding improvements are in areas like Valley View in south Maplewood that was hit with localized flooding from extreme rainfall events in the fall of 2005. Except for the activities that are taken from the City NPDES SWPPP, the Implementation Plan is not a hard and fast commitment to complete each and every activity in the time frame suggested. Rather, it is a suggested course of action that will accomplish the major goal of this plan; to accommodate new development, in-fill development and redevelopment in the community while protecting and improving Maplewood's surface water resources. Infrastructure replacements and/or additions will be reviewed, approved and administered in accordance with Maplewood's Capital Improvement Program. City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10:8 May 2009 Table 10-3. Implementation Program Priority Projects and Activities Project Name Description Year ID Explore opportunities for water quality Identify where water quality Annual 1 improvement projects and install BMPs in improvements can be made beyond key watersheds the minimum required of public and private projects. RWMWD, VBWD and CRWD 2 Update storm water ordinance Standards, Codify 1-inch volume 2009 control requirements 3 Update wetland ordinance Complete update to wetland ordinance, classifications and buffer standards 2009 Review and implement Chloride use and Review Shingle creek study results and 4 management alternatives for the Battle work with watershed district to 2009-2012 Creek watershed area implement best practices in drainage areas Work with watershed organizations to Annual 5 Participate in TMDL Studies develop feasible implementation programs Complete infiltration/volume control Intent to get ahead of volume control 6 feasibility study for future street with a more cost effective 2009-2010 implementation effort and possibility of reconstruction areas banking credits Explore opportunities for discharge rate Evaluate flows coming from the east 7 reductions or hydrograph modifications in 2010-2011 the Fish and Snake Creek Svstems 8 Compile hydrologic models in key 2009-2011 Hydrologic Model Development areas not covered by watershed models 9 Implement Annual wetland mitigation site Track ongoing monitoring and Annual maintenance needs on created monitoring and maintenance program wetlands, establish ongoing budget. 10 Develop and implement a refined system Inspection form and data in GIS format 2009 to track and record NPDES pond and for more efficient Annual BMP maintenance activities Amendments to the Plan The NPDES SWPPP activities will be reviewed and evaluated annually in a public meeting and the permit program itself is scheduled to be updated in 2011 and every five years after that. For this Plan to remain dynamic, an avenue must be available to implement new information, ideas, methods, standards, management practices, and any other changes which may affect the intent and/or results of the Plan. Amendment proposals can be requested any time by any person or persons either residing or having business within the City. Proposed amendments are reviewed by staff, and if determined to be a reasonable and necessary amendment the need for a public hearing shall be considered at a regular or special Council meeting. Council and the watershed organizations have an opportunity to determine whether or not to approve of the proposed amendments. City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10-9 May 2009 Annual Report to Council An annual report will be completed by City staff summarizing water resource management activities that have been completed over each calendar year. To the extent practicable, and to avoid duplication of efforts, the annual report will be coordinated with preparation ofthe NPDES MS4 program annual report that must be submitted to MPCA by June 30th of each year. The NPDES annual report includes a public notice, meeting and comment process prior to finalizing the annual report. The City will use this annual reporting process to evaluate the overall storm water management program. Staff's intent is to revisit the goals, policies, tools and progress of the Plan on a three to five year basis. Water quality trends will be reviewed with input from the Watershed Districts, the effectiveness of regulatory programs will be evaluated, and the success of public improvement projects will be assessed. Based on these subsequent reviews, the SWMP will be updated to produce a truly dynamic plan. City of Maplewood Surface Water Management Plan 10-10 May 2009 A5t{\OGlL~M ~~- MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator Steve Love, Engineer Filtration Basin at Spoon Lake Preserve July 14, 2009 TO: FROM: INTRODUCTION On April 7, 2009, Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission recommended installing a filtration basin at Spoon Lake Neighborhood Preserve, and requested an opportunity to review the landscape design for the basin. At the July 20 ENR Commission meeting, staff will present the landscape plan for the basin and receive commissioner input. DISCUSSION Landscape Architect Veronica Anderson, SEH, Inc., was hired to develop a concept plan for the filtration basin and a detailed design for the entry area at Spoon Lake Neighborhood Preserve. Staff will present the concept plan and detailed design at the July 20, 2009 ENR Commission meeting. Key features are introduced below. 1. Concept Plan (Attachment 1) The concept plan shows the Forest Street entry to the preserve and the filtration basin. Because this a concept plan, it does not show the number and species of trees and other plants. Rather it shows areas of continual canopy or open canopy cover. Sandy soils were encountered in much of the basin and we are proposing the wooded areas of the basin be planted with species that are found in Central Mesic Hardwood Forests(Attachment 2). This species list for this plant community was prepared by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Great River Greening. We use it as a guide and do not include all species listed. The hardwood forest will merge into oak savanna on the east and into existing woodlands on the west and south. 2. Detailed Design A detailed design was prepared for the area between the end of Forest Street and the bottom of the basin. Stormwater runoff from the street will flow into two underground box culverts. From there water drops out of the culvert to a dry creek bed and flows to the bottom of the filtration basin. a. Boulder and fence layout. Attachment 3 shows the boulder layout for the entry area. Boulders and field stones will be used to enhance the aesthetics of the entry and create a dry creek. The outfall plates marked on the drawing are where the water flows out of the culvert and into the dry stream. The dry stream has various size rocks and sparse plantings. b. Profile of dry stream. Attachment 4, Figure 4, shows the structure and planting profile for the dry stream. There is a 2.5' drop and 20' distance from the culvert outfall to the bottom of the basin. c. Entry Trees. Attachment 5 shows trees and rocks in the entry area. d. Entry Perennial Planting. Attachment 6 shows the planting plan for the entry area. There is a 5'-wide mowed strip along the curb to accommodate snow piling. Minnesota native prairie and woodland edge species are used in the planting. The basin has been excavated, the drain tiles installed, and a no-mow fescue mix sowed. The box culvert is scheduled to be installed July 15. After input from the ENR commission, our consultant will make final changes to the concept plan and detailed entryway design. We hope to install the entryway in Fall 2009. We may plant some of the basin trees this fall and will schedule additional basin plantings for 2010. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that Environmental and Natural Resources Commission provide input on the landscape design for the filtration basin at Spoon Lake Neighborhood Preserve. Attachments: 1. Filtration Basin Landscape Concept 2. Plant list for Central Mesic Hardwood Forest 3. Boulder and Fence Layout Plan 4. Structure and Planting Profile Plan 5. Entry Tree Planting Plan 6. Entry Perennial Planting Plan 2 if. f.. I I J J j J i i ~~~ (j) > '- (j) Jill.!...' i, hu! I ~J IIIU i g ~ oJ - o "''0 1j.... ,S == ~;.: ~- <l.> " U .. , <l.> - - '" '" oJ '" >Il~ .... c8 '" - '" :3 - '" <l.> .. o ~ '" '" <l.> 0 '0 0 <l.> ::: ""'" if) .. 0'" .- == " u " .- S ~ S ;.: o u.. db oJ ill O::u <l.> > ~ .~ : .;z:O '" '" '" 0, !~ 0 :: ~ '" '" ~ '" IN ~ IN I I .N, N M M) M - - - lOO ~ ! !~ '" '" 6 >-'0 '" N N N '" :=: ~ .. oo!;:: N i ! \0 \01\0 i I MIM : : : 0000 N r"'J.jM N I I I i I I I 111 S! v!_l cl<l)ll-< ~lli:Hl 'c 0l);'V ~I' I I I I I I i I , I I I I I I .J I~! ~"t,~-J~ ; i ! 1 .s ~;g " . '" ~6iN Ci ~ ~ ~ ;u E ~ .~ ~ i2 <1.>"2 t;jo..~ ~ 8 :..::: '" . ~ .",00 " :; " '" a . ~ . a :1 Jj .... o U ~'" 8 ~ " :i2, ..: '" ..,. '" - o "',-" g.., ~~ " ~ 5= " .... ,~ ~ ~ >LIf5. ~ t2't; '" '" - .... '" c ~~ ","Cl .~ 0 g ~ 0."Cl '" .... pOl 'g ~ s ~ s~ 0_ U E ~ 1:i p:a '" :> ~ fi~ 1 I 1 1 I, I I I I I ~I~ ~ "'01 1::"10 1ii ~ '~gl1:~:E :u ~ 171 ~I :ll ~ P<,., ;;; ~ ~ "'I"" 010 "'0 t:: ~ ..J:: 1""108 ~ g,1 ~!I'E 1J s'l 0' E@ "0 C':l :>. ;>. i>. II) U Q) 0 u ~!~I~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~!~ "5 !~ ~:Ei:E!gL~ e ~18 ~ I 1 , I I ' I I I I I ! I II I -!-- I I I I J I I~ ~ s jl I ~ II i r>::i.,d, 1::;:1....;,::;:",,; ~I....;....; ....; "' ....; , ~ I I I I I , I I 1.I'jilll I I ill I I I I I I ~I I I 11,g .~I ~ I.~ ~ o ~l~!~ l~' 5 ~I~ ~. ~! l~'~ ~I~ ~I~i ~I ~ ~ ~ i I ! I I ~ II ~III ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ;; ~ ~ fj ~I ~ ~ ~ I ~ EL~I ~ ~ ~I ~I] ~ ~i]1 il~ 8 l2J~ r1JlClla e ;;jl~' ~ t ~!.~~ ~ 100 'ON I I-M" ,::;." I ~~" -I",,,,, i I ~ ~'" '" ~ "6:1:; 181'''' o;;I:;;II':o? Nig ,~I~ ~ -1-1- I~'~ '" ~IT' I J I I;;~:;; ~I;; I I o 'O o:-r"I tf"l............. N ~ o 's, B ~ 1 1 I ~ r:s! ~l~ '~ xl~l] .~ 5!~ ~ ~l I ~ Wlltl! li.8 t:s II - ~.~ >' I~ ~ 0,0 N N !~I'f I ~ - 00 N N ~~ r I I I 1~1 t ~ ~I 0 u ~ ""g,!:! '0 oH'1 ""' Is ,.- I! -5 ~ 1m o N -OlfO ,"0 '" N N ("<) N {'f""j_ ..::, o N o oo:=;~""" ~ ~ ~ liE ~ :E '" .S .0 .~ U ~ I~ I I ~ o . f-<....l .~ ~ ~ 8 ~! on '" on :=: \"51 ~ I I I I 1 I I f I <; ~ -E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;I -~ p...SI 0 ~I.!fi ~ ,p'jit:l u .gl ]1 ~I I ~. .1 S i"'" I ~ 1..8 ~ ~ iO"':":' ~ .1'" !II o....:!,eu ~ I tl i ~I ~ ~ u o o '" 0'10 00 ~ ~ I on ~ ~ 00 :=::=: I II I I I .g I "", .E I I II "" u o : '" '" ~ @ u ~ ::;: old .d u .:;: ~ d .j~ ~ .~ ~ ~ e u g.! ~ .~ II ~ u ,~ t:s g .~ ~ _ 0 ~i9. ..i'l ~ ~ .tl 'l: o ~ jll o 0 0.0 0 oo'<:t '<::t 00 MM~N""" MlOMMM ~ ~I~I~!~I ;a E I, ~ ~ ~ o 0 E 0 ,nl ~ I ~ , I ~ ,'" ~ I ~ I ':;j Jj I '" u "'~....; ~....; .~ I~ I~ I I l,g ~I.g, ~ ~ ~I ~ . 'S,,'~ ~ .t:ltr< c,) I I ~ I '_ 1 ~ ~ '"ti It: ~ '~I.~ t ~ ~ ~I~ ! "'5 ~ ;:;t . > 0 52N ~ ~ c ,,~ ~ ~ u @ ~.~ ~ ~-a~ ,,!iii ",,,,~ il ~ JS o ~ E :E ,s 'll 13 .,,- 8 '" " :2, <: M .... oj - o "',-" " .., s .. ~~ OJ ~~ " = u .. ,~ ~ ~ ~15. .. <8 '" - '" ;J - '" '" .. o 1>0. '" "'" " 0 '0 0 " i:: "'"'" r:FJ .. ~.. .~ ~ EO ~ EO ~ o u.. d -= oj = O::u '" ;> ~ .~ ; ]';0 o~ror6 '-Oll.OiC'l -r-<I- . I "1" "1"IN I I ~l'~~r N ._.1_1_ ~ I I , , ! ! , I m'T(1')TM I I : I 6ro~oTO~ NjN1 NiNiN j! I! , ,; j' I! ...... j ...... ~~-;:::;T~"Y~~' I I : I o~; N Ni 00 ~~ ~I~'I'~ - -- I I I"IM I I , I , " ~, -~t' I I N1M 0 0 I" {",dC'l'~ 0 " " " " " " " "I I . j l I I I I T~ "" I I l I I I I I I l I I l <:<;Ii l ,,: g! ; .... 'il ~ 181 v! Ii 00, ;;.-..j(ljl ~ ~ _<11 j ! ~lol ~ ~ .D '0 ;:: on giG! I ~i "'1 ~ -6 0 I;.::: 1;; '0 ...l:lj~ E' ; ! (l) ~I~,~ ~ ~ 0 on ~I~l ..sd~!~I'El c ~ .~ 00 :.0 c .g 1 gfl 01 via ~l i ~ ~ (/); at-..... '1 1 ~ ] 1> ~1:a! '~' ~ ~ .....;,..c: >!"O;"~, Ie '0 ~ ::l''''CI, al-oI b.O! 81'01 8!:i: v 0 ;; ~ -j 01 ......, (1)( o,~ ._l 0 U '" E9J:;2;I~_ CllP::;q:P ,>1 ~r . i ; ! ;=<-""r~%< 1 1 1 I I I I I , I I I J 1 I ~<~J t~~-L .1 I ~! I i- ti51~i %H~I ~1'21 :<1'-<1 Cl'--'! I l I I I I I I~ : l I I I I r I , 1 , , "'11.1 0"'--', ...l:l <fl, alQ: ,.-"l,.-.,i dldi...;j1 IT l I l I I I I , I ,.L,j I I I I l I Jj o 'j@ :gl ~I ~I d I I I ~ ..j..j..jd I I I ! i 1~- l I I I I I ~ lJl "'- ...c' ~ ~l 6 " o g , l ~I lfEl ;;: il !-:Sl ~i!; ~ It::::' Ci of C .~! ~I~L_ t~L~l.~l~, -1 onoo", .S ~ C> C ~ 0 ~_N ~ ~ ?> o~" ~ <I) ~ ~ oM ~ 1;j .a.Q ~ ~ ~ '0 ~ 0 :; " '" s . g ~ .~ :. ,s .... o u .~ "" E :2, << ~ ~ gp~C! 0' :i:1 0 81:i: <5 0 0 00 '5 ~ ~ '" '" " 00 '" '" '" '" ~ ~ C "I '" '" o ~ '" 1 ~ ~ ~ I i:2.tlo, .'0 " " ~I'" '" '" '" - - - " " ~Q.....t:: cd og I '000 " ill "- 0 0 << '" 00 '" '" 15 '" " ~ !j ;;: Jj ~ 0 " " '8' "- " I :2-, -< ~ " I s " " ~I bIl bIl ~ " '0 '" " " ~ . . . bIl ~ '" " ~ t " 0 " ~!.t: .-"i ~ ;;, ~Is . , '" .s @ bill' ~ QIO " 3;;: "- '" t.~ I "0 ~ '" Ie Jl "- I " ~ 0 '" '3 I~ Pl '" '" ~ '" ::@ ~ " ,: . I~ . --' "'t:i ~!~ ~ ~l .~ OJ ~11l s 01;:. s ~ ...; ....l';;: ;:. :I:~", ~...jcl ~ I = .... <> " , ..... ..... ~ '" .. I p;.l f5. ... <8 ..... ~ '" " .... ..... 0 '" ;::1 ;>;; '" 'C .2 0 0 <> ~ " 0.'C <Zl .... p" Jj .- = "" '" " c " " .- " '" E ~ ~ "" E ~ " = " 0 .. U .... [!l il ..... .c = ~ ~ = jl; " I>: U b " ,;; .~ .Q > " . " '-g ~ ~ 2- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. " 8 o " f. 0 ... ~ " ' " ~c3 '" .... oj - o ~\C " '" .~ == ::s~ 0; '@ " u , ~ '-<l ~ = .... " - 'I> .. '" ....~ t.S~ " ~ .... 1;; '" ;::11"< ~'e .~ 0 2 ~ P<'e <ZJ .... >- .. .......1Ii ~ .~ S a:l S ~ o uo; .... ~ -= " P::u " > ;.j .~ ~ ~O " <B ~ ." g " 5 " <B 'l c " . " " :;j ~ " . o '" " ~ ., " . .~ .~ . " <5 " .!l " . .0 ~ . " -d' t ~ ~ gp ci: . ~ ] ~ -5 ~ ~ {= t vi.S ~ .~ '" - <; ~ ~ 0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ "0] ~ '" ~ "0 iJ .'E ~ .~:; ~ .n ~.~ (/) ~ . z 5 ~ ~ Po. w e ~ {jj .5;5 .€ }~ .~ N~ .Ef ~ C!; " .0 ~~N (5';:;~ ii <0 ~ ~.~ ~ ~ -afl e ~ ;.::: t.:loo-fl 11 '" '" 15 E g @ :E . ,s ~ o ;; "5> ~ " :12, < ~ ~ . ." " . 5 o . S ~ 3 " > '" o . . . e. ~ . o .S: E e- B . > o . 8 ] u ~ " 0 '5 1l. ~ " .0 '" ." :& '3 a CD " " . .0 !j " ;; " " .0 '" . '" ., '<3 . o " . '" 3 :;: S ~ 0 '" .~.,8 .~ ~~ ]< b 8 "3 " E a 4:1 0:1 C 1;"0 s:: <.)"@ Q.) 1:: s:: 5- Q.):~ e ~ - ~ . 0 ~.s ~ e"g So. . ~ > 0 a < ~ o a 8;S 8 @ B '8 l.~ .g ~ .5 .s . "" ~ . 'u . go ~ " . o ". . "0;: " ~ o ~ 8~ f-' B;/I ~t />// "~<\<'\ <<j .' /~. ,,1// . ,:{ \~ ,.,' ", r~ . ow. '. !' "".f " I' 1../"., r1~>1l8.& I' ! i~" 1~ "-""-"'/! .... ~"Gf < t """"---;..---."';\ >" '" ,/ \ f / /"'~ ," '-('.(:~~:::~::;:~::;<,..,'".:".,.:""".,/.,>",',""'."")4~ i (/::.-,~.\:(:(:/.~,:::.(_::_~ . '< / . ,,~ ~ _ __/" ~ '"_,, - . ,_" ~_:::=:~~"0!c::~,_" \ '~, ~/::-" ; '. ~;;::> ,.-. '/,;:~~(i /:,,::' : >\: >:, i y/ /" /-..i" > '\'",- \ / / / .,-"~-'>,,,,~,,,,, > '\" ~":,\ '; / -' / /,,, ''''-''' ,,, ~ \ 1// : ',_,~"<, ~ ,\ \, ! f L ~ '", '\' \ _; ,\ ~ ! / " ~ - ~ 11 ~. !;!lll I'!~ l!ll'!iS..g aa~~~ ......w...j:: ~!i~!~ l:it:!iQ. l:L..l!la.~ ~i~:~ G.l!:;~QI'! ~~i:~ "'--'". . ~ ~ . ~ ~ e '" . ~ 0 ro " >- ~ '" w 9 " 0 ro "--""'>-.., / i ',,~ (' :> ,. -I,! "''I" ---'", A,,-.J ! !i~I;1.' ;'/ \..:;:'U. / ". t''/' /'~ ~~.f ;~'-, ~~ AZ j!~~~:I--' ;r .. !i!~ . "ffi ~ ~ ~ i ., ." ;j, ~ ~ & f 8~ h ... Im:mmm ............. iWiiHiH iiiiiiiliiiii e "-'",1 i J't ". c\ ~y~(;\ ~., ~ . " 'AI i i ~i . i "I i , / . f f / , , i / i ! ,/-'" ',) ! i f / ' , ! -' ;'/r:7\ / / (:%!<i /)- ( <>e!~~" i \ ~.~~~ / , ,,;2~":!i" .: ! ;' ,',_,Z<=>-, f /" liil~~f.~ I ~~ ( Ch i/e ~~"J::~ ,1,.' "-i. ,"~' , ' \ '-"f~--.;, / ( / i_, ~ :'/ " '~:;'->.. " , , , / " ~, .,.>\~<!~>~ ~-1 A. , /' ~"I ~~/;, -!f 0(., ~<-\ '+ ,-;k::: ~-~[:;~j~ '-/" --;c<, - / i "~-L'" i :5\,:,~.~r/ f .71 / I ., 0~/ f / /,/ '''''''<:''-'' ".', A" "-.--,,,,,-. -< \ ----"'....... "~. , i ---- " ",../t , ~)< / / / f ! j i' '~_L_,,/\ i f . , , \ \ \ \ , , , "-.. f- '" "' lL. ~I oS <( ;j~ z 0:::: ~~ ma z~ o~ 0 ~~ ~s ~ ~~ t;;~ ~. .ffi 1;;9 W~ ~g " 0< Of- 00 3:(f) ww -'z o..z <- ::2::2 ~~ .I! i~ :ae i 4 i;; ~3 lil l'~ 'I! Iii !il I .d~. !Iill :11:; !:i!ll 111'11 bM I ! ! r- . , , \ o . . . \ \ ~+l "I; i ~ >- ~ w > I a :> 1\ I , P w :; > m ~ u ~ 8 ~ I ~ 0: 0 0 >- ~ ,.:,""-. e ~ ~ ! I E w >- "' ~ . 1 ui I" ~ !Il a _ .qi ~ ~ -' m "' ~~~aj ~ . >- R'!. . 0 " I P ~ ~ 0 ~;~~ 8 :;" ~ ; Cl 81 mTi ~~ ~m ~ i~~~i i il~~ ; ~~m. l!! <~~ , ml" i~~ 1m "~ I i.li" ;~!. iliU w u z w ~ ~ :1 ~ 0 >- ~ ~~ ::J ~ ~ -~ ", j, ~~~ , u ~ .. II' , , j "" ; ~ nw _w , ~ <0 <0 'I . . .. ~ ~~ Z ffi < . i!5~ ~~ ~c "~ ~a -w eZ ~~ ~~ l;i::i ~ :> w :; w ~ c 51 ~ '" z i=' z < ~ ~ 0<( Of- ~o wVl -'w LLz <(~ ::;::; " z < w ~ " >- u " ~ >- ~ ~~ .!! i~ v(Q :a~ :l! I"' J II! J Iii I !il I illj'j :Ii'i ii!!il 111'll !1M ! ~ ~w . . +Iil ;ii /). ~ ~ /;; " 0< ill!::1 ~c ~ ~ :l:! ill ~~<< 0 I- Ii:"'tl~'" ;<: <D ~ ill ~~u~~ E =:I ~o '" o '" ...C~ . ~ =:1,"",;::1;;: z 8 ~~s~~ ~ :5 "- ~ iliig!~~ " !i ~ I / f- LL <C 0::: o (0 ..,. . II.! ~ ~~ z ~ ~~ z~ o. Fo <z 2~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~@ ~ o<{ Of- 00 3:(f) ww --'z CLz <{- ::;::; ~~ :I! ~~ j;;a~ ~ I,' ; ,ii ~ l" ill' iil Iii I Idl!' .111 II' II'! Mill 111'll bM , ! ! , ; ,+1 'I' ~ ,I /1. ~i- ~>ili! (f) iil~e.! (;:j !Il >li!l.":' :l<:: ~ e~\'I;!~ ...J Vi !i!!i!3.5:3 ~ ~ 3~j~~ ~ g ~i;~~ !z 9 a8ai~::l ~ ~ ili35~~ !:l ~ !2 z: C1:E ... :::> 0". d~' ~ i S~~~ ~i ~ jj ~ a ~l:icl= I:l!l!~~ ~j:!a S! UJI:l ~~~~ ~~~~~~~E~ ! ~~ >~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~J~ z'" ;:lili ",t~~!5>-j~ ~ Q~ 33~~ ~~~3~~~~~ ~ ~:~~~!~~~~f~~~~~~~~ I~~' !,~~",,>,> i ~~f ;11 i .'-",',', ".." !! R:~' I IV'.>~~6z~ / /~ 0 l :'~I",I'.'. 'l!!~' / ~~;/PVi~ //'" / "', I";~ . ' "<",",,!~. ,&w. , h. ~ '< " ,'~ / I f i Ir Z'i,", \. ,c".. ""I ',(' ~"" n ........~'<.L;'Ji' ~ ~ "' ~.'?(, f \" ~ I~::I!II :-' ,....--,?-J ~ "'" / . ., . .. / '0CB, i " ::........~ <\ .." ," .' ; ',' ~, AliI' ~ ;;Y ...-1,.[;:: ~ , /, I ,.v'. Y~A'~12 J ,',., '.. ,'I' \", 1l'lJ ,,\ Wo . ~r""""/'W / I llf..', , "~,.. ~o;" 'j\;~~W";'i, h/( , ,', ,I ~.o.. I'm Y-:,J~~ 'Xv ~'I... "' ~ ~ c; --,...-- I~~ \l)<'"~ h ,/ .i, . ,x~rf~'7\' -=-........;:::;;;~'). rR;~:// ..,~ '. "',', ~ ""','..' )'K<"('('~" ,';1;{ . ~ i << ~ .1' ;b. ~ ." '- ~J "" ~<. ~ If 1;" """"t',~, b~ '~~*S r:; '~L~ ~ ~~"' \ i.. !Il :r ~ ....- _,' '!rr .,,:, j-/"f:;kt---. /~ '.)~ ,I"", l ..:! ~'.,; ~ ~~ )I c-~':"'., ii<>"<~' i/ _\ / ~ ' ',"~'> 'i< ~. I '\~ l?n-;&>~ ",,:,,', tv ~/ ~l\l~. , ii '["if.~ . 1?, ~,..;'::;- I /\ ~'\.J ~. -- ,'~,~h', i~~', ~, ' /~(,;':>)./~>:';'k37.~ "'PI'" '" i1\o.!; · ;;, ~ y~ .,............~. >ct'- , . . !4'" ii' 1\ 7>1:;,'1:\ Y\> J-........ ..4';:::---( -r,. .' "'~"i" ':. .' ~ "X01--;~.-//~ ~ ' ~. 0 ~ ~~}"..'.o~"",~~,.."",., %~~ ' ',)/' ,.1....... ~,' " ',~" " >"\, ,~. ' , '("',",",, ,"", ""-",1'''';0' i~i ~4 ~ ~ '" ., " " ~ : !l!::J !!1M i ~, ~ "'::J i;J>< iIi ,I' ",~, I..'~i ",,~~~. , ' .'- > c ~ " ,", ,." i"' ., ~~ I~I ~:~ .~". ~:~, ..~. j.., f- <0 I') LL '. .. -l <( "~" 0:::: o h ~5 .~ ~~ FF <z ~5 "~ ~;t B~ ~ffi ~~ ~r ~~ ~1:l 0<( Of- ~~ ww -'z CLZ <(- :::;;:::;; ~~ H~ ,I, . =as i I;; 1~ ;i~ l" il! Iii !i1 ~ ,aI!, !llll ill:; MIll 111!ll hM I i .. " , . .. . , , ~ , , , , / "jl ' , , Y' , , , , , , \ >,_fi HI Agenda Item G.b. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Capital Improvement Plan July 15, 2009 for the July 20 ENR Meeting BACKGROUND The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission was invited to the public hearing for the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan with the Planning Commission on July 7. During that review, Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director and Bob Mittet, Finance Director, discussed the staff report and gave a presentation on the proposed plan (refer to the attached July 2, 2009, staff report and the Capital Improvement Plan submitted to the commission prior to the public hearing). The Planning Commission and ENR Commissioners in attendance for the public hearing reviewed and asked questions about the proposed plan (refer to July 7, 2009, Planning Commission minutes attached). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan. This recommendation, along with all other commission and board recommendations, will be presented to the City Council on July 27, 2009. RECOMMENDATION The ENR Commission should give a recommendation and feedback on the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan. The City Council will review the plan and all recommendations on July 27, 2009. Attachments: 1. July 2, 2009, Capital Improvement Plan Staff Report 2. July 7, 2009, Draft Planning Commission Minutes (Partial) TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Attr.<<.-hMe.r1T I AGENDA REPORT Planning Commission Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager Robert Mittet, Finance Director 2010 - 2014 Capital Improvement Plan July 2, 2009 INTRODUCTION Attached is the proposed 2010 - 2014 Capital Improvement Plan for review by the Planning Commission as a Public Heariog. Members of the Environment and Natural Resources Commission have been invited to participate as a joint session to provide their input as part of the process. After a review of the requested projects and recommended plan, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council, who will review the CIP at their July 27th Regular Meeting. Summary Following is a summary of previous plans. Note that in 2008, the City Council removed $11,000,000 from projects from the plan and established a goal to stabilize the growth in the CIP. The 2010-2014 CIP is a continuation ofthat plan with the exception that a $12.0 million project was added in 2014 at TH 36- English that increase the plan accordingly and provides for a major jump in the amount. PLANNING YEAR 2005 - 2009 CIP: 2006 - 2010 CIP: 2007 - 2011 CIP: 2008 - 2012 CIP: 2009 - 2013 CIP: 2009 - 2013 CIP: 2010 - 2014 CIP: COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS PLANS TOTAL $$ AMOUNT $58,665,870 $64,889,670 No CIP Completed $76,351,734 $76,749,098 (proposed) $65,759,098 (approved) $76,363,760 (proposed) CHANGE + 10.6% N/A + 17.7% +0.5% -13.9% +16.1% The following are the major expenditures in the CIP: . 2014: . 2013: . 2010: . 2011: . 2012: $12,000,000 - TH 36 - English Interchange $5,750,000 - Gladstone, Phase III $5,750,000 - Hills and Dales Area Streets $5,420,000 - Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Streets $4,430,000 - Crestview / Highwood Area Streets 2010 - 2014 CIP PAGE TWO To accommodate a reduction in the plan, the following major projects (pages 152-153) needed to be deferred from the next five year plan to meet the overall goal of stabilizing the plan: PROJECTS DEFERRED . Hillcrest AreaRedevelopment: $4,200,000 $ 800,000 $ 578,672 . Commercial Property Redevelopment: . Equipment Replacements: . Police Department Expansion: $5,200,000 . Total of All Deferred Projects: $ 516,000 $9,765,000 $21,409,672 . MCC Building and City Hall Upgrades: . Public Works Improvement Projects Note: the amount of deferred projects has increased by $8,000,000 from the 2009- 2013 CIP. The following chart indicates the proposed financial plan and impact on debt: 2008: $15,546,450 City's total tax levy $ 3,421,925 Debt load,within tax levy (22%) 2008: $75,352,297 Total Debt 2009: ($13,067,048) Debt Payments Due 2009: $74,057,297 Projected Debt (-0.54%) 2010: $78,997,297 Anticipated Debt +(6.67%) 2011: $77,367,297 Anticipated Debt - (2.06%) 2012: $76,247,297 Anticipated Debt -( 1.45%) 2013 $75,719,839 Anticipated Debt -(0.69%) 2014: $75,510,167 Anticipated Debt -(0.28%) ,'< 2010 - 2014 CIP PAGE THREE The following is a summary of the debt analysis section of the proposed CIP and demonstrates the impact of the debt, which is generally limited to maintaining the debt levy at the current level. If no new debt is issued, the City's debt would decrease to $35,785,167 in the next five years. A recent audit of the City's debt found that 75% of all debt is scheduled to repaid within the next nine years, which ranks the City in the top 20% nationally for debt management. Debt in 2004: $59,882,297 Debt in 2008: $74,462,297 - growth of 5.5% per year $74,057,297 - no growth Proposed Debt in 2009: Future years Debt growth is expected at 3-5% w/o refunding Debt per capita: . 2004 - 2006: . 2007: . 2008: . 2009: . 2013: just under $1 ,600 per person increased to $1,820 per person increased to $1,950 per person decrease to $1,911 per person projected to increase to $1,980 per person A measure of a City's fiscal management is debt capacity. Following are the critical items within that analysis: o Legal Debt Margin is 3% of market value = $117,595,380. ' o Applicable Debt is $2,010,000. o City's goal for fiscal management has kept debt at 2.0% of Market Value. 2010: 2011: 2012: 2013: 2014: 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 2010 - 2014 CIP PAGE FOUR PARKS CIP ISSUES The following is a reprint of the information that was provided to the Park and Recreation Commission: Background - Financial Plan The balance of funds available in the Park Development Fund over the past few years: 2005 End of Year Balance 2006 End of Year Balance 2007 End of Year Balance 2008 End of Year Balance $ 592,878 $ 884,950 $1,236,752 $1,657,039 The Maplewood accounting process requires that funds be transferred out ofthe various funds into a project fund. The transfers for 2009 are: Lions Park Joy Park Lake Links Trail Gladstone Savanna - Phase I Open Space Improvements Neighborhood Parks Comprehensive Plan $ 50,000 $ 200,000 $ 115,000 $ 40,000. $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 10.000 $ 515,000 Total 2008 Project Transfers Effective Fund Balance $1,142,039 The plan anticipates that there will be additional PAC fees received during the remainder of 2009 Future 2009 PAC Revenue $ 100,000 Plan for 2009 End of Year Balance $1,242,039 . - Gladstone Discussion: It is anticipated that the first phase of Gladstone may begin later in 2009. The first development has been delayed, so we do not know when we will receive the PAC fees from that development. A review of the Gladstone plan: . It was originally assumed that the City would receive $2,400,000 of PAC fees from the development. However, that was based on the following: 800 new units @ $3,000 per unit = $2,400,000 2010-2014CIP PAGE FIVE . The development plan has been revised to a new range of 650 - 690 new units. In addition, there was discussion that some of these units will be reduced space, such as senior housing that does not pay full PAC fees. The current plan for PAC revenue is: 665 new units @ $2,250 per unit = $1,496,250 . We have proposed to begin consideration of Savanna improvements during the second half of 2009, with major improvements in 2010. This would be supplemented with a proposed agreement with the developer of Phase I whereby the Developer would make a $500,000 contribution to the Savanna improvements as part of the Development Agreement. . Future phases of the development are proposed in 2012 with Phase II and 2014 in Phase III that correspond to a similar level of PAC Fees from the developments. The overall plan is that all PAC fees collected in Gladstone's redevelopment would be dedicated to improvements within Gladstone with a focus on attempting to supplement these funds with other sources of monies through the development process. . We have identified improvements of $1 ,800,000 that is shown within the plan, which is an increase of $300,000 from last year's plan, but a decrease in the PAC contribution. Discussion There is currently no general tax dollars dedicated for a transfer into the Park Development Fund. The 2006 - 2010 CIP identified the possibility that general fund levy money would be transferred into the fund beginning in 2007. This did not occur. The CIP is a planning document, not an official budgeting allocation. In April 2005, when the 2006 - 2010 CIP was prepared, it was assumed that taxes may become available beginning in 2007 in the amount of $393,330, and increase by $300,000 in 2008 and another $300,000 in 2009, so that the 2009 allocation was $939,080. The 2007 and 2008 approved City budget did not include any allocations, and it is highly unlikely'that $939,080 will be available for 2009. A CIP for the years 2007 - 2011 was not adopted by the Council. There was no tax dollars dedicated to the Park Development Fund in the 2008 - 2012 CIP. It should be noted that the 2009 - 2013 CIP proposed to start a small levy dedication for park replacements of $60,000. We recognize that there is an annual need of $200,000 - $300,000 for park equipment replacements and community field upgrades; however, these improvements cannot be funded from the Park Development Fund and PAC fees due to the legal requirements for use of PAC fees. The only other current source of funds is property taxes, which are very limited in 2009 - 2010. It will not be easy to begin .- this dedication of tax dollars; however, we are recommending that $265,000 of general levy dollars be dedicated to this purpose during the 2010 - 2014 period. Background: 2010.2014 Capital Improvement Plan The assumptions for future years include some less conservative assumptions on PAC fees but also a conservative approach on Fund Balance. The intent is to be planning for projects that may occur in future years, while also maintaining an appropriate fund balance. Following are the assumptions: 2010 - 2014 CIP PAGE SIX Park Charges by Year: . 2010 . 2011 . 2012 . 2013 . 2014. . TOTAL PAC Charges $ 600,000 ($400K PAC from Gladstone) $ 635,000 ($335K PAC from Gethsemane) $ 900,000 ($600K PAC from Gladstone II) $ 250,000 $ 650.000 $3,035,000 Projects Planned by Year: . 2010 . 2011 . 2012 . 2013 . 2014 . TOTAL PROJECTS $1,160,000 $1,074,000 $ 850,000 $ 300,000 $ 800.000 $4,185,000 $ 155,000' Projected Fund balance at end of 2014 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss of the items listed above. After discussion of the CIP that is proposed by the City Manager, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. Attachment: 1. 2010 - 2014 CIP [separate document] Attachment 2 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 7,2009 (Partial Minutes Pertaining to CIP Review) I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Corn missioner Harland Hess Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present City Staff Present: Torn Ekstrand, City Planner Chuck Ahl. Assistant City ManaQer Robert Mittel. City Finance Director v. PUBLIC HEARING b. 8:10 p.m.: 2010-2014 Capitallmprovernent Plan Public works director Chuck Ahl presented the staff report for the proposed 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan for review by the planning comrnission as a public hearing. Mr. Ahl said other city commission rnembers were invited to attend this hearing and comment on this project. Mr. Ahl explained funding of previous annual improvement plans and answered questions from the commission regarding projects included in the 2010-2014 proposal. Ginny Yingling, a member of the environment and natural resource cornrnission, 673 Dorland Road S., asked if recornmendations from the students involved in the Sustainable Maplewood project were considered during the capital improvement plan process. Director Ahl responded that those recommendations were taken into consideration and some have already been irnplemented. Commissioner Yingling asked how budget dollars were determined for the Gerten pond drainage improvement project without a study being done. Director Ahl responded that staff gets an estimate of the overall improvements foreseen as necessary. Fredrica Musgrave, a member of the environment and natural resource commission, 1949 Greenbrier Street, asked for clarification of details with some projects scheduled in this proposed plan. Ms. Musgrave asked that the planning comrnission look closely at each of the proposed iterns in the proposed CIP to determine if they are really needed. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-07-09 -2- Peter Fischer, chair of the parks commission, explained that the commission is currently working off of a needs assessment that was done in 1999. Mr. Fischer explained that before improvements are done in a park the commission holds a neighborhood meeting where residents can review the plans and give comments and ideas. Commissioner Boeser suggested that C.I.P. project prioritization would be a useful in-service training topic and asked staff if that would be possible. Director Ahl said it would not be difficult to provide the information in a training session. Finance director Mittet explained that financing details of funds and debt management also contribute to how the projects are prioritized. Cornmissioner Pearson moved the planning commission recornmend to the city council approval of the Capital Improvement Project 2010-2014. Commissioner Yarwood seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all Agenda Item 6.c. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Wind Turbine Ordinance July 15, 2009 for the July 20 ENR Commission Meeting With the increase in energy costs more businesses and single family homes are turning to alternative forms of energy, including wind powered energy. Because of this, the City of Maplewood has had several inquiries about the construction of residential and commercial wind turbines over the last year. The city does not have an ordinance allowing wind turbines. However, the city's tower ordinance which regulates cellular towers could be interpreted to allow wind "towers" in commercial zoning districts with a conditional use permit, but would not allow them in a residential zoning district. Felicia Szott, undergraduate student at Hamline University, completed a three- month internship with the city in May. Ms. Szott researched wind energy and wind turbine regulations in order to make a recommendation on how the City of Maplewood should regulate this technology. Ms. Szott presented her findings at the May 5 ENR Commission meeting. In addition, Ms. Szott is finalizing a wind turbine brief for the commission's review. Attached find a copy of both of Ms. Szott's power point presentations (Wind Energy and Permitting and Standards for Wind Energy) for your review. At the writing of this memorandum Ms. Szott's wind turbine brief was not complete, but staff will supply the brief to the commission at the July 20 meeting. These items are being supplied to the commission for background information and review as we move forvvard with the review of a draft wind turbine ordinance. The wind turbine ordinance discussion will continue during the August ENR Commission meeting. Agenda Item 6.d. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Environmental Protection Ordinance July 15, 2009 for the July 20 ENR Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION Last fall the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission began reviewing the remaining portions of the Environmental Protection Ordinance regarding slopes and the Mississippi Critical Area. During the December 2, 2008, meeting the ENR Commission posed the following questions for review: 1. Better define slope and bluff line. 2. Review graduated building setbacks to various types of bluff lines and slopes; current ordinance requires a 40-foot structure setback from a bluff line (slope with a grade of 18%-plus that drains into protected waters). 3. Clarify various types and degrees of slopes. DISCUSSION On May 5, 2009, Steve Kummer, engineer, gave a presentation to the commission on the various types and degrees of slopes and other basic background data requested by the commission (refer to copy of presentation attached - Attachment 1). During the meeting it was noted that the Department of Natural Resource's draft shoreland rules might offer insight into bluff line and setback requirements. Since that time the DNR has adopted draft rules which define a bluff line and set minimal setback requirements. Attached for review by the commission is the Environmental Protection Ordinance which shows changes proposed by the ENR Commission since your initial review of the ordinance in the fall, and suggested changes based on Mr. Kummer's presentation and the DNR draft shoreland rules. RECOMMENDATION Review the attached documents and be prepared to discuss the Environmental Protection Ordinance regarding slopes and the Mississippi Critical Area. Attachments: 1. Steve Kummer May 2009 Presentation 2. Draft Environmental Protection Ordinance Att~.d,)l'I'\ef\t \ Slopes 5-5-09 E & NRC Meeting Steven L. Kummer, P.E. Staff Engineer Slope Basics . High School Algebra .y=mx+b . Equation for a line with slope mandy-intercept b. . Slope m is defined as "rise over run" or rise/run. Line with 'positive' slope. Line with <negative' slope. 7/14/2009 1 Slope Terminology . Slope = rise/run or vertical dist/horizontal dist . Expressed in several ways . Percentage:2~, 5~, 8~ . Horizontal to Vertical or H: V . 3H:IV, 2H:IV .3:1,2:1 ['H' and 'V' implied] . IV:3H, IV:2H or 1:3 or 1:2 ['H' and 'V' implied] . Maplewood Standard: Express as H:V (3:1 or 2:1) . Can be expressed as an angle, but not common. Slope Terminology . Shallow or flatter slopes usually expressed as a percentage. . Usually for hardscaping or landscaping. . Parking lots, roadways, ramps, driveways lawns. . 0.50~ up to 10~ typical, sometimes l5~. . Steeper slopes are usually expressed as a ratio of Horizontal to Vertical. . Hills and Valleys, steep embankments, bluffs. . 10:1 down to 1:1, steeper yet - Yz:1. 7/14/2009 2 Gradations of Slopes . Parking Lots (usually depend on use) . Grocery stores and other retail outlets like to have flat parking lots 1 % to 3% max . Major roadway slopes (high speed) . 0.50% to 6% . 6% to 10% not as common and longer slopes typically have warmng slgnage. . Minor or residential streets (low speed). . 0.50% to 10% . 10% to 12% exist but not common. Gradations of Slope . Driveways and Ramps . Anywhere from 1 % to 15% or even steeper! . Hilly Terrain - Gentle . 10% to 20% (10:1 to 5:1) . Hilly Terrain - Steep . 20% to 33% (5:1 to 3:1) . 5: 1 is the limit of comfort in walking. . Creek Eroded Areas and Drop-offs . 33%to 100% (3:1 to 1:1) . Cliffs . 1: 1 to vertical 7/14/2009 3 Measuring a Slope . Spirit Level . "Smart" Level . Survey Level or Total Station . Hand Level 1.5% to 2.0% 7/14/2009 4 7/14/2009 2.5% to 3.0% 3.0% to 4.0% 5 7/14/2009 6.0% to 8.0% 5:1 6 4:1 3:1 (33%) Bluff? Steep slope? 7/14/2009 7 7/1412009 2.5:1 (40%) Bluff? Steep slope? 2.5:1 (40%) Bluff? Steep slope? 8 7/14/2009 Bluff? > 2:1 Bluff? Steep slope? 9 > 2:1 7/14/2009 Bluff? Steep slope? Engineering Properties of Slopes . Failure Modes . Sliding or Sloughing . Global or Rotational 10 Building Near Slopes . International Building Code . H/3 from TOP of slope: MIN 5 ft, NTE 40 ft . H/2 from BOT of slope: MIN 5 ft . '>-10( or SLOPE .n'5FT,!.IIN. H!261JfNEECNI;Jf EXCU:D 15fT.lMX. Characteristics of Stable Slopes . Ample vegetation . Slopes appropriate for the type of soils on the hill (sandy steep slopes are more erodible than clay steep slopes) . Stepped slopes (used in temporary or permanent construction) 7/14/2009 11 Slopes: Why Protect Them? . Creep . Sloughing . Erosion . Landslides . Public Safety Issue . Aesthetics . Wildlife . Pollution of Waters . Maintain Existing Drainage Patterns . Historical Significance 7/14/2009 12 Some Slope Guidelines . . 1.5% minimum on any surface for proper drainage. . 4:1 maximum on slope unless in a bind. . Protecting a slope becomes an issue steeper than 5: 1 since it is tough to establish vegetation on the slope. . Vegetation is very, very important. . Curb drainage away from a slope whenever possible. 7/14/2009 13 Example Ordinance Parameters . Defmed a slope restriction zone. . Restrict the amount of area to be disturbed in the slope restriction zone. . Limits based on the actual slope and length of slope. . No mention of horizontal slope length restrictions. . A setback restriction was usually involved. . Vegetation restrictions and maintenance. Example Ordinance Parameters . No buildings within 10 to 40 feet of slope or based on the height of the slope. . Maximum %-age of area disturbance within a restricted zone based on the %-slope. . Stability analysis as required by the City Engineer. . Hydrologic analyses required. 7/14/2009 14 Some Questions to Start With . Do slopes benefit the quality of life of residents and business owners within the City? How so? . What do we like about slopes? . What are we protecting slopes from? . Other questions? 7/14/2009 15 Attachment 2 ARTICLE VII. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CRITICAL AREA Portion of the Environmental Protection and Critical Area Ordinance that Pertain to Slopes/ Critical Area/Erosion Control (Changes proposed by the Environmental Commission on November 6 are underlined if added and stricken if deleted, notes explaining changes are in italics, notes addressing commission concerns expressed during the December review are italics and bold.) July 15,2009 Sec. 12-247. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to protect significant natural features which: This section should be reviewed to ensure it covers the purpose of protection of slopes, critical area, and erosion control measures: I. Preserve the natural character of neighborhoods. 2. Protect the health and safety of residents. 3. Protect water quality. 4. Prevent erosion or flooding. 5. Manage the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area in accordance with the Critical Areas Act of 1973, the Minnesota Policy Act of 1973 and the Governor's critical area designation order, Executive Order 130, dated November 23, 1976. (Ord. No. 533, 1,12-13-82: Ord. No. 571, 1,9-24-84) Sec. 12-248. Applicability. This section should be reviewed to ensure it covers the applicability of the protection of slopes, critical area, and erosion control measures: 1. 1bis article shall apply to any person or use that would alter a significant natural feature. 2. Public and semipublic projects, such as streets, utilities and parks, whether built by a public agency or private developer, shall be subject to this article, except that the city council may waive these requirements where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirements of this article. A public hearing shall be held before declaring such a waiver. The property owners within 350 feet of the site shall be notified at least ten days before the hearing. (Code 1982,9-187) 1 Sec. 12-249. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Bluffline means a line delineating a top of a slope with direct drainage to a protected water, connecting the points at which the slope becomes less than 18 percent. More than one bluffline may be encountered proceeding landward from a protected water. Bluff is described differentlyin the shoreland district: Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having all of the following characteristics (land with an average slope of less than 18 percent for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): 1 Part of all of the feature is in a shoreland; 2 The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high-water level; 3 The grade of the slope from the top of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high-water level averages 30 percent or greater; and 4 The slope must drain toward a public water. Bluff is described in the Department of Natural Resources draft April 2009 shoreland rules as follows: Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having all of the following characteristics: ] part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; 2 the slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody or toe of the bluff; 3 the grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to the top of bluff averages 30 percent or greater; 4 where the "toe of the bluff" means the ordinary high water level or the lower point of a horizontal] O-foot segment with an average slope exceeding ]8 percent, and the "top of the bluff' means the higher point of a horizontal] 0- foot segment with an average slope exceeding ]8 percent. Critical area means the Mississippi River Corridor Area bounded by Carver Avenue, 1-494 and the city limits. Direct drainage means drainage into a protected water without an intervening pond or wetland. Erosion means the general process by which soils are removed by flowing surface or subsurface water or wind. Gross soil loss means the average annual total amount of soil material carried from one acre of land by erosion. 2 Pipeline means an underground line of pipe including associated pumps, valves, control devices and other structures utilized for conveying liquids, gases, sewage or other finely divided solids from one point to another. Protected water, formerly referred to as "public waters," means any water defined in Minn. Stats. 105.37, subd. 14. Retaining wall means a structure utilized to hold a slope in a position in which it would not naturally remain. Sediment means suspended matter carried by water, sewage or other liquids. Significant natural feature means a significant water body, a large tree, a woodlot, a significant slope or a site of historical or archeological significance that has been recorded with the state. Significant Natural Feature is defined in the tree ordinance to mean: a significant water body, woodlot, significant slope, or a site of historical or archeological significance that has been recorded with the state. The term "a large tree" was removed as the tree ordinance describes a significant tree, which is a large tree. Significant Natural Feature is also referred to in the city's zoning code under development potential within each zoning district. It is also referred to on two other areas of the environmental protection ordinance under applicability and scope. Significant slope means a natural slope of 25 percent or more grade over an area at least 200 feet in length (top to bottom) and 500 feet in width (side to side). Significant water body means a water body shown on the city drainage plan or a water body over one acre ill area. Slope means the inclination of the natural surface of the land from the horizontal; commonly described as a ratio of the length to the height. Slope is defined the same in the tree ordinance, not defined in the wetland ordinance, and defined differently in the shoreland ordinance as follows: Steep slope means land having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs. Substantially altered means... when a slove has been "substantially altered" the slove ordinance exemvts that slove from the re!!:ulations. The ENR Commission thou!!:ht that substantially altered should be defined. Structure means any thing manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures. Substation means any utility structure, other than lines, pipelines, poles or towers. 3 Terrace means a relatively level area bordered on one or more sides by a retaining walL Utility means electric, telephone, telegraph, cable television, water, sanitary or storm sewer, solid waste, gas, towers, or similar service operations. Vegetation means all plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, mosses or grasses. Water body means any lake, stream, pond, wetland or river. Sec. 12-307. Scope. Under this article all plans and the conduct of all grading, landscaping, structure placement, and street routing shall be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, and for development in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the Maplewood Critical Area Plan. 1. The proposed development shall not lessen existing public access to and along a protected water. 2. The goals to protecting slopes proposed de'felopffient shall be designated, eonstrueted and maintained to ayoid causing: a. Erosion controL b. Prevent Fpollution, contamination or siltation of water bodies or storm sewers. c. Prevent l'.flooding. d. Prevent Ggroundwater contamination, e. Avoid Ai!iteration of significant natural features. 3. Development shall not substantially diminish the scientific, historical, educational, recreational or aesthetic value of unique natural areas, plants and animals, which are registered with the state as such, and shall not substantially alter their reproductive cycles. 4. Views of protected waters from buildings or public street shall not be impaired by the placement of advertising signs. The NURP standards will be addressed in the surface water management ordinance, which will need to be created once the 2008 comprehensive plan is adopted. 5. Where feasible, all new stoml'.Yater detention ponds shall be designed and constructed to meet the Natiomvide Urban RUfloffProgram (NURP) design criteria of removing at least 60 percent of the phosphorous. The enginecr or designer may use the Walker pondnet model or the Pitt pond model when designing stormVfater ponds, as noted by the MillIlesota Pollution Control.^.gency (MPCf.) Proteeting Wate, Quality in Urban :\reas manual. The applicant or applicant's engincer shall provide the city engineer with the neccsslH'Y calculations to verify the pond design. 4 (Code 1982, 9-193; Ord. No. 811, 1,3-26-2001) Sec. 12-308. Slopes. 1. No development shall be permitted on existing slopes of 18 perce3nt or greater which are in direct drainage to a protected water. 2. In areas not in direct drainage to a protected water, no development shall be allowed on existing slopes greater than 40 percent. This seems too arbitrary. Does Maplewood have slopes this steep? It seems that anything over 25 percent should be considered a significant slope. 3. No development, whether or not in direct drainage to a protected water, shall be permitted on land having an existing slope in excess of 12 percent, unless the applicant proves the following conditions are met: (a) Controls and protections exist uphill from the proposed development such that there is no danger of structures or streets being struck by falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other materials. (b) The proposed development presents no danger of falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other materials to structures downhill. (c) The view of a developed slope within the critical area from the Mississippi River and opposite river bank is consistent with the natural appearance of the undeveloped slope, consistent with any state-registered historic areas nearby, compatible with the view from historic areas, and compatible with surrounding architectural features. . (d) The city engineer may require the developer to provide a soils engineer to certifY the stability of potentially unstable slopes. 4. The basic character of natural slopes of25 percent or more in grade shall not be altered without approval from the city council. The council shall base its decision on the following: (a) The degree of alteration of the slope; and (b) The importance of the slope to the character ofthe area. 5. All new structures and roads shall be placed no closer than 40 feet from a bluffline. Why 40 feet? Also, the shoreland ordinance states that the placement, design, and height of structures shall be evaluated on "steep slopes" for possible soil erosion 5 impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit to construct sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures or other improvements on steep slopes. When the city engineer determines it necessary, he shall attach conditions to permits. These conditions shall prevent erosion and preserve vegetation that screens structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters during the summer. The Department of Natural Resources draft April 2009 shoreland rules requires a 30:foot structure setbackfrom a blujJline. Exceptions shall be as follows: (a) Public recreation facilities, scenic overlooks, public observation platforms or public trail systems. (b) The construction of abo'/cground pumping stations. (c) Othcr dcvclopmcnt, whcn the applicant can conchwi...ely demonstmte that construction or [mal de'/elopmcnt will not negati'/ely impact slopes with a grade of 1 g perccnt or grcater. Item 5.d. (structures) should be moved to the building code. (d) All ether structures, ether than buildings and roadway surfaces, but inehlding retaining wafts, shall meet the /olle~l'ing design requirements: ') , Retllining walls or [eFraee centeurs in excess ~lfaur ftet in height shall hEr:e El J+{;:1f:e. 2) Construction mat-erials shell be subject te community design Fcview boaFa eppN}~'aI. 6. The requirements of this section shall not apply in the following situations: (a) Where a slope has been substantially altered (this should be defined) by prior excavation or filling. (b) Where a slope is less than 200 feet in length (top to bottom) or 500 feet in width (side to side). ( c) Where earth sheltered homes are proposed. Sec. 12-309. Erosion control and soils. 1. All erosion control, stormwater runoff, utility and similar structures shall be designed to be maintained and operated without requiring the crossing or operation of heavy maintenance vehieles and equipment, such as bulldozers, trucks and backhoes, on slopes 6 in excess of eight (should this be 18 percent?) percent. This requirement may be waived by the city council where there is no other alternative. 2. Construction shall not be allowed where there are soil problems, including but not limited to soil-bearing strength, shrink/swell potential or excess frost movement, unless effective soil correction measures or building construction methods are approved by the building official. Review section 3 for accuracy? 3. Development shall be accomplished only in such a manner that on-site gross soil loss levels shall not exceed five tons per acre per year during construction, but only two tons per acre per year when the site is adjacent to a water body, watercourse or storm sewer inlet, and one-half ton per acre per year after construction activities are completed. State statute requires cities to adopt a soil loss ordinance based on the US Soil Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide. Based on this, Maplewood's soil losses should not exceed 4 to 5 tons per acre per year for non-vegetative soils. The city does this through aggressive enforcement of erosion control at construction sites by using qualitative measurements such as whether siltfences are in place. Review section 4, it seems vague? 4. A development shall be located to minimize the removal of vegetation and alteration of the natural topography. 5. Erosion protection measures shall make maximum use of natural, in-place vegetation, rather than the placing of new vegetation on the site. 7