HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/2010 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
December 15, 2010
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
October 27, 2010
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Open Mike
5. Action Items
A. Environmental Board Goals 2010
6. Discussion Items
A. Peltier Lake Heron Colony Update
B. Emerald Ash Borer/Planting Diversity /Community Forest Bonding Grant
C. Wollan's Park Wetland Bank Update
D. Blue Star Award
E. Approve 2011 meeting Schedule
7. Adjourn
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2010
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
: October 27, 2010
. 6:34 P.M.
. 7:35 P.M.
: Mary Jo O'Dea, Barbara Bor, Paula
Andrzejewski, Martha DeHaven and Theresa
Klaman
: Steve Heiskary and Peter Brown
: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson
1. CALL TO ORDER
Ms. O'Dea called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 29, 2010 Minutes
Change: Peter Brown to not present at the 9 -29 -09 meeting.
Add: Ms. Klaman as making a motion to approve the September 29 agenda and
Ms. Bor as seconding the motion.
Ms. Andrzejewski made a motion to approve the September 29, 2010 minutes.
Ms. Klaman seconded the motion to approve the minutes. Motion carried
unanimously
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Move: Item on Spring Burning permits with Chief Jerry Streich to be the first
Discussion Item.
Move: Item on SHEP Summary to the third Discussion Item.
Ms. Klaman made a motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Andrzejewski seconded
the motion to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously
4. OPEN MIKE
Open mike closed at 6:35 p.m.
5. ACTION ITEMS
DRAFT MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2010
None
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. SHEP Summary for 2010 — Gary Averbeck
Mr. Gary Averbeck presented as PowerPoint presentation on the 2009 Rice Creek
Watershed Stream Health Evaluation Program.
He presented the following background information: Aquatic organisms express a
range of tolerances to environmental conditions. These organisms mirror
environmental conditions which have occurred over a period of time ranging from
months to years. Biological monitoring provides a more complete picture of the
ecological health of our waters.
Clearwater Creek: Listed as impaired for aquatic life, due to coliform bacteria and
low dissolved oxygen. Results: Moderately stressed by incoming pollutants.
Overall it appears moderately stable.
Hardwood Creek: Listed as impaired biota (fish). Low dissolved oxygen.
Results: FBI score corresponds to a "Poor" rating. Overall, hardwood appears to
be stable.
Mr. Averbeck handed out the 2009 Executive Summary on the Rice Creek
Watershed Stream Health Evaluation Program (SHEP) to board members.
Ms. Bor questioned if the new test site was lower than the original site. He stated
yes.
Ms. Bor questioned the vegetation change. He stated there has been a little bit of
change. The long grass to the south of the stream has been grazed by horses.
He stated they found a huge number of freshwater sponges, which are filter
feeders. Possibly this is an indicator of water quality. The mats exist only for a
single season. He has not seen them before this season.
Ms. Bor stated the group's accuracy is higher than 96% accuracy.
Ms. O'Dea questioned if the group will monitor again next year. Mr. Averbeck
stated as long as the grant comes in again, yes.
The group looks at findings over a long period of time. It is not simply math
stated Averbeck. It is more of looking at a trend of improvement over the years.
DRAFT MINUTES 2
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2010
2. Rice Lake Stormwater Stenciling/Clean Water and Pollution
Awareness Presentation; Eagle Scout Steven Pehoski
Steven Pehoski was present. He is currently working on an Eagle Scout project
that focuses on increasing awareness of the effects of stormwater runoff to our
local lakes. He presented a PowerPoint presentation to the board.
He is from local Troop 103 out of St. Joseph's Parish. He stated there are several
different aspects of this project. He and his group stenciled 165 storm drains in
the Rice Lake Watershed District in the area of Sunset Avenue, Lake Drive Area
and south of St. Joe's Church on Elm Street. They also distributed fliers in the
area on how to reduce the impact of storm water runoff.
He is in the process of contacting a local newspaper to see if they will run an
article to further increase awareness of stormwater runoff.
He stated Stormwater Runoff is the number one cause of water pollution. This
problem is affecting out local lakes. Rice Lake and Lake Baldwin are off the
charts. The problem is not that people don't care. They are not aware of how they
affect our lakes.
The five main Pollutants are: Sediment, Nutrients, Bacteria, Toxics and Heat
Sediment comes from construction sites, roads, eroded soil, etc. This interferes
with recreation, destroys habitat and carries other pollutants that adhere to the dirt
particles.
Nutrients: Fertilizer, runoff enters water and promotes algae growth, one pound of
phosphorus can produce up to 500 pounds of algae, excess of algae negatively
impacts a lake's ecosystem.
Bacteria: High levels of fecal bacteria. The bacteria comes from pet and wildlife
feces, etc.
Toxics: Poisons, yard chemicals, metals from roofing materials.
Heat: Animals such as trout require the water temp to be within a certain range,
stormwater runoff from hot roofs, roads, parking lots, and other surfaces can raise
water temperatures above their tolerance.
IMPACT:
Ecosystem disturbance: destroys habitat, kills off species
Aesthetic Impact: odor, color, turbidity
Human Health
DRAFT MINUTES 3
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2010
Prevention/Solutions: Keep streets, sidewalks and driveways clean; Mark your
storm drain; Take your car to a car wash; use zero phosphorus fertilizer; save
water & money by collecting rainwater from your downspouts with a rain barrel to
water your plants.
Ms. O'Dea questioned who Mr. Pehoski will be presenting his presentation to.
He stated schools and young people.
He stated he focused mainly on reducing the impact on Rice Lake through storm
stenciling. He believes the lake was recently put on the impacted list. He stated
his group stenciled 165 drains. The task took about 11/2 hours to complete.
Roughly about 3 minutes per drain. The drains read: Dump no waste, drains to
lake. He said his group distributed about 566 fliers to the neighborhood directly
impacting Rice Lake. He managed the work for maximum efficiency.
Mr. Asleson stated Mr. Pehoski did a tremendous job and is very proud of him as
a senior in high school and Eagle Scout. He took on a project that needed to be
done and informed residents.
3. Spring Burning Permits Discussion — Chief Jerry Streich, Centennial
Fire Department
Mr. Asleson stated Ms. Bor requested inviting Chief Jerry Streich to attend a
meeting to discuss burning permits.
Mr. Asleson reviewed management and burning tools. He stated in the past he
has fallen behind on burning. Currently there are permit requests to burn in the
fall. However, everything is still green at this time and is not able to burn.
Hopefully, before it snows we will be able to get a few burns in. If not, it falls
back to the spring of the year. He stated the DNR will give the City a waiver to
the spring ban for burning.
Chief Streich explained the permitting process. The policy is not to allow burns
during bans. The City Ordinance states clearly permits will not be issued. There
is a heavy danger and high risk to occur during the state burning ban. The burning
restriction by issued by the State of Minnesota. A burning ban means large burns
or recreational fires.
Ms. O'Dea stated Mr. Jason Husveth, Critical Connections, came before the board
in September. He stated it has been difficult over the past few years to get a
permit in the spring. She stated the Board would like to know what to do to help
facilitate the situation. Our perspective is, if could do this administratively, we
would like to do.
DRAFT MINUTES 4
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2010
7. ADJOURN
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
There being no further business, Ms. DeHaven moved to adjourn at 7:35 p.m.
Ms. Andrzejewski seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Lisa Hogstad
Community Development Secretary
DRAFT MINUTES 5
Agenda Item 5A
Staff Originator: Marty Asleson
Environmental Board
Meeting Date: December 15, 2010
Topic: Environmental Board Goals 2011
BACKGROUND: Each year the Environmental Board drafts goals for the
forthcoming year (Attachment 1). The goals are presented to the City Council for
approval. Goals drive the Environmental Board and staff to focus on areas that will
benefit the mission or vision of environmental issues in the City of Lino Lakes. The
vision adopted in the 1998 Handbook for Conservation Development states that of
"ensuring a high quality living environment within the context of responsible land
stewardship, and long -term sustainability."
ANALYSIS: The attached Environmental Board Goals were adopted for 2010. We
need to review last year's goals and establish new goals for 2011. Many of the goals are
ongoing issues.
The last bullet discusses workshops. This could possibly be part of the first bullet, that of
"Promoting Environmental Stewardship ". Last year we offered a Rain Garden and a
WaterSmart workshop in cooperation with the City of Lino Lakes, City of Blaine and the
Anoka Conservation District. There were few, if any, residents from Lino Lakes in
attendance at either one of these workshops. Perhaps it was because of the location in
Blaine. I have been discussing the possibility of a rain barrel workshop with Connie
Taillon, formerly an engineer with TKDA. Grant funds are being applied for at this time.
Connie would charge $119 per oak barrel kit, and $89 per plastic kit. 2010 pricing for
the kits are $128 and $99 respectively, or $189 and $99 fully assembled. We would seek
a cost share grant to subsidize $30 to $50 of the cost of each barrel. Connie would offer
the workshop for free. See flyer (Attachment 2).
We need to update our local water management plan for an additional goal that would
cover this issue.
The Emerald Ash Borer plan is still in flux in that we are waiting for the county to
develop their plan. Also, if we are successful with obtaining grant dollars for plant
diversity, we will have new inputs into the Purdue cost prediction model.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt new goals for 2011, and submit them to the City
Council for approval.
•
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2010 Environmental Board Goals
2. Rain Barrel Information Sheet
•
•
•
•
•
•
Item A — 4- 1-1- ucl1nr►e/4
2010 Goals
• Promote environmental stewardship with the citizens of Lino Lakes by
communicating environmental initiatives in the city using various means of
communication such as:
• City Web Pages
• Newsletter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
• homeowners association meetings
• information kiosk
• press coverage
• Earth Day
• Arbor Day
• Recycling Day — (May 1st)
• Participate in Blue Heron Days (August), providing public service educational
material to the public.
• Participate in Earth Day (April) activities in the community, promoting
environmental awareness and collaboration with other environmental focused
organizations.
• Monitor any activity in the AUAR as well as other proposed development
areas, focusing on the values Lino Lakes citizens have expressed in the
vision for our city and the unique ecological aspects of our wetlands, lakes
and streams and subsurface waters. Apply mitigation plan as defined for that
area.
• Perform an evaluation of past Environmental Board recommendations for
development projects. Review a sampling of a variety of projects by site
visits, discussion with city staff, and landowners, neighbors, on the outcomes
of the Board's recommendations. If necessary, submit a summary of
significant findings resulting from the review in writing to the Community
Development Director.
Due to lack of development in 2009 there were fewer visits than planned.
The VFW site was visited with suggested corrections. These corrections were
made.
• Promote conservation development within the City incorporating the Open
Space/Trail Plan and Handbook for Environmental Planning and
Conservation Development within the scope of the new Resources
Management Plan, and the Resources Management Plan RMP -3
Item -»
• To meet or exceed our City recycling goal of 50 (1737 tons) percent or
greater of our Municipal solid waste. Find innovative ways to promote and
encourage recycling as a city. Add recycling materials to kiosk.
• Investigate and establish a Community Garden site, and preparatory plan for
a Gardening Group.
• Create a preparedness Plan for EAB
• Work on Wollen's Park Wetland Banking.
• Continue to monitor the Heron rookery and water quality in the northern one
third of Peltier Lake and to support the protection of resources in that area.
• Participate in comp plan and process.
• Offer a series of conservation workshops for residents through the Anoka
County Soil Water Conservation District for 2010.
•
•
•
{ -irm S R-- 11-4 c h men+ 2
The Anoka Conservation District, in conjunction with partnering agencies, offers grants for projects that provide
public benefits to water quality. Projects that additionally provide fish and wildlife benefits are preferred.
Projects must be within Anoka County.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
• Projects are reviewed by ACD staff and grant decisions are made by the ACD Board of Supervisors.
• Grants are reimbursement grants. Successful applicants must submit receipts for eligible expenses to
the Anoka Conservation District. Reimbursement checks will be issued within four weeks.
• The ACD reserves full discretion to fund or not fund projects or portions of projects. Grants are
available on a first come -first serve basis, are limited, and availability varies by watershed.
• Applicants may apply for other grant programs in addition to ACD grants, but the ACD will not provide
grants such that total funding from public sources exceeds 75% of eligible project expenses.
• Eligible projects and grant amounts are on the following page.
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES:
Materials
• Native plants (those approved by the ACD and MN DNR)
• Erosion control blankets and biologs
• Wood mulch
• Landscaping fabric
• Stakes or anchors
• Herbicide
• Tool or machine rental
• Lawn edging (up to $0.50 per lineal foot cost share)
• Soil amendments
• Retaining wall block (rain gardens only)
• Drainage materials (rain gardens only)
• Others as approved by the ACD Board of Supervisors
Labor
• Professional project design (up to $250 cost share)
• Professional grading, curb cuts or soil amendments.
• Others as approved by the ACD Board of Supervisors
Expenses incurred before the grant is approved are not eligible.
APPLICATION PROCESS:
Applications are accepted at any time, however funds are limited and awarded first -come, first -serve.
To apply, complete the Anoka Conservation District's "Water Quality Cost Share Grant Application." The
grant recipient must enter into a contract with the ACD to maintain the project for not less than 5 years.
Questions should be directed to Jamie Schurbon, Water Resource Specialist at 763 - 434 -2030 or
jamie.schurbon@anokaswcd.org
• ASSISTANCE:
Anoka Conservation District staff are available to assist landowners with project advice, design, and cost
estimation.
..
I.
C
E
E
•�v9
cr
O
C,
ii.
0
ca
o
O
p
L
L1
O
b4
.00
•�
0 L
0
Cd
`A
CL N
E L
G
r
a)
no
o 1
1..
a) O
•y.
m • al
a)
$10 per linear foot of
shoreline treated
$700 for raingardens
serving <2500 sq ft
$1,000 for raingardens
serving >2500 sq ft
Grant Amount
v)
a)
y
C
a)
Q.
X
O
N-
4
O
O
h
a)
up
C
a>
a
X
0
b0
)
w
0
O
50% of eligible expenses
50% of eligible expenses
.............................
Project Specifications
PARTIAL Shoreline Restoration:
Restore native shoreline plants to lakes, streams, or rivers. Partial
restorations include less than 75% of the shore frontage or are less
than 25 feet deep from the shoreline on average. The plant
restoration must be no less than 5 feet deep from the shoreline.
These projects correct shoreline erosion on lakes, streams, or rivers
through the use of soft engineering techniques such as natural -fiber
erosion control materials, cedar tree revetments, brush bundles
and /or native plants. These projects do not include a buffer of
native vegetation that is >5 feet deep from the shoreline.
Hard armament, such as rock, is not favored but may be funded if
the ACD deems it necessary for site stabilization.
Residential projects where stormwater runoff is directed into a
central basin filled with native plants and appropriate underlying
soils for infiltration.
Project Type
a.)
L
O O
.0 0
CS L
L
w y
Cli a)
4 a
Shoreline Erosion
Control
Rain Gardens
a>
Rf
V)
O
U
a)
0
O
bD
0
1
1
L
0
0
U
0
O
0
0
ctl
i)
0
0
4)
0
•
•
•
•
Water Quality Cost Share Grant
Application
APPLICANT INFORMATION
ANK A
eONSERueTION
u_
Land Owner /Land Occupier Address Phone
City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy 651 - 982 -2435
Contact: Marty Asleson Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Email
marty.asleson@ci.lino-
lakes.mn.us
PROJECT LOCATION
Waterbody
Address
Municipality
Township- Range-
Watershed
Rice Lake and
others
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Lino Lakes
Section Various, all
within Cit bounda
RCWD,
VLAWMO
Project Type
Full Natural shoreline restoration
Partial Natural shoreline restoration
Shoreline erosion control
Rain garden
Other: Build Your Own Rain Barrel Workshop
�rief Project Description
The City of Lino Lakes wishes to conduct a rain barrel education and construction workshop that will target
neighborhoods within the Rice Lake watershed. The workshop will educate participants about water quality and water
conservation and guide them through the construction of their own oak or plastic rain barrel. The City is requesting a
$700.00 water quality grant to subsidize the cost of rain barrel kits for up to 20 participants.
Environmental Benefits (include habitat, pollutant removal, acres of runoff treated, erosion /sediment
control, etc.)
See attached page.
Project Timeline
The workshop will be conducted at the Lino Lakes City Hall or Wargo Nature Center, in April or May 2011. The City will
advertise the workshop in the spring 2011 Lino Lakes newsletter. The deadline to submit the rain barrel workshop
announcement for the spring 2011 newsletter is January 20, 2011.
Special Considerations (any site- or project- specific information that you think warrants special
consideration. Attach additional pages if needed)
The workshop will be open to all Lino Lakes residents, but priority will be given to residents within the Rice Lake
Watershed.
•
Signature I certify the above information is accurate.
OTHER APPLICATION MATERIALS ANKA
A complete application must include: e VANN
This application form VIBE"
® Project Plan (drawing must indicate project size in square feet and
affected shoreline length in feet) Not applicable for this project
Estimated Project Budget (include all materials, delivery fees, etc. If labor is being done by
the homeowner, please indicate) See attached page
Optional - Photos of the project location are useful but not required (may be submitted
digitally) See attached page for rain barrel Photos
SUBMIT APPLICATION MATERIALS TO:
Jamie Schurbon, Water Resource Specialist
Anoka Conservation District
16015 Central Avenue NE #103
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Fax: 763- 434 -2094
Email: jamie.schurbon @anokaswcd.org
TO BE COMPLETED BY ACD STAFF:
Cost Share Eligibility:
❑ 50%
70%
Other:
Funding Source:
❑ Watershed Organization
❑ Ag Preserves
❑ Other:
•
Eligible Expenses:
TOTAL:
Ineligible Expenses:
TOTAL:
Grant Award Calculation:
Notes:
Max Grant Award:
•
•
Water Quality Cost Share Grant Application -Anoka Conservation District
City of Lino Lakes
December 10, 2010
Environmental Benefits
Pollutant Removal and Volume Benefits
Twenty, 55- gallon rain barrels have the capacity to capture 1,100 gallons of roof runoff for each
storm event, which is comparable to the volume and pollutant removal potential of an 8" deep, 250
square foot raingarden.
The impervious area treated will vary depending on the roof and gutter configuration of each
property. Assuming a roof drainage area of 500 square feet for each of the 20 barrels, runoff from
10,000 square feet of impervious area will be directed to the barrels.
Environmental Education Benefits
The rain barrel workshop will include a PowerPoint presentation focused on educating participants
about:
• Stormwater basics and water pollution
• Water conservation and water quality benefits of rain barrels
• Other water conservation and water quality protection measures including raingardens, native
plantings, shoreline restoration, and low impact yard care
• Resources for raingarden and shoreline restoration cost share assistance
Estimated Project Budget for a Build Your Own Rain Barrel Workshop
0 The City is requesting a $700.00 water quality grant to subsidize the cost of oak and plastic rain
barrel kits for up to 20 workshop participants ($35.00 for each rain barrel kit).
•
Rain Barrel Kit
Plastic Barrel Kit
Recycled Oak Barrel Kit
Unsubsidized
Cost Per Kit
$89.00
$119.00
Plastic Barrel -Green
Cost Per Kit
After Subsidy
$ 54.00
$ 84.00
Plastic Barrel -Beige
Cost Share
Percentage
40%
30%
Recycled Oak Barrel
J
Build Your Own Rain Barrel Workshop
Using Recycled Oak Wine Barrels
Cedar hill Natives
Overview
Cedar Hill Natives conducts workshops for public and private organizations interested in hosting an
education - based, hands -on rain barrel workshop. The workshop is designed to teach participants the
personal and environmental benefits of rainwater collection, and to guide them through the construction
of their own oak rain barrel. Our rain barrel workshop is unique because we use recycled oak wine
barrels, which are a popular and aesthetically pleasing alternative to plastic barrels.
Oak Rain Barrel Kit
Rates
Services
Cedar Hill Natives will provide the following:
• Educational instruction
♦ Informational materials
♦ Oak rain barrel kits
♦ Tools for oak rain barrel assembly
The workshop host will need to provide the following:
♦ Site for the workshop with access to electrical outlets
• List of participants prior to the workshop date
♦ Contact person for planning and coordination
Deposit Fee
To reserve a workshop date, a $100.00 deposit is required. The full deposit will be
refunded upon confirmation of at least twelve paid participants.
The deposit fee may be negotiable for organizations with budgetary concerns.
Oak Rain Barrel Kit Cost
Contact us for current price
Grants may be available for organizations that want to host a rain barrel workshop.
Cedar Hill Natives can assist you in determining if grant money is available to help
subsidize the cost of the rain barrel kits for participants.
Please call or email us for workshop availability, reservations, or with any questions.
Completed Oak Rain Barrel
Cedar Hill Natives ♦ Stillwater, MN ♦ Phone: 651 - 252 -7598 ♦ Email: connie @cedarhillnatives.com
•
Emerald Ash Borer Community Forest Bonding Grant
Discussion Item 6B — Staff Report
Date: 12/15/2010
To: Environmental Board
From: Marty Asleson
Re: Emerald Ash Borer Community Forest Bonding Grant
Background
A grant application was submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to
plant trees to create more forest diversity in the City of Lino Lakes. I did not have time
to run this by the Board. I obtained permission to submit the grant from the City Council.
If successful in obtaining this grant, we would be able to plant new trees in several parks
and two neighborhood boulevards (Attachment 1). It would also have an effect on
previously calculated costs in the Emerald Ash Borer Preparedness Plan.
Attachment(s)
1. Grant Application Map.
•
•
•
DISCUSSION ITEM STAFF REPORT
Discussion Item 6C
Date: 12/15/2010
To: Environmental Board
From: Marty Asleson
Re: Wollan's Park Restoration
Background
Included in the 2010 Goals is to work on Wollan's Park wetland bank. In 2010 we have
reached the mid -point of the application process and are close to submitting the
management plan to the State of Minnesota. The State Evaluation Panel recently
discussed the eligible credits the City of Lino Lakes might expect and gave approvals for
the submittal of Part B. The attachment "Wetland Conservation Act, Restoration and
Protection of Exceptional Natural Resource Value (ENRV)" helps to explain the
Minnesota Rule for banking a parcel of property with the ENRV status.
Attachment(s)
1. "Wetland Conservation Act, Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural
Resource Value (ENRV)"
•
•
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT
Restoration and Protection of Exceptional
Natural Resource Value (ENRV)
BWSR Administrative Guidance, July 1, 2010
Overview
Rule Reference: MN Rule 8420.0526, Subpart 8.
Applicability: To provide guidance to Technical Evaluation Panels (TEPs) and Local
Government Units (LGUs) for use in evaluating potential projects for the
allocation of wetland replacement credit under the ENRV provisions of
the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). ENRV provides an option to gen-
erate credit for projects that restore and protect exceptionally valuable
natural resource functions.
Intended Use:
This guidance does not carry the weight of rule and is not binding on
any party, however it does provide additional specificity for applying
the ENRV action eligible for credit and should be used as a supplement
to the WCA rule.
Application
Decisions on eligibility and credit
allocation are made by the LGU with TEP
concurrence. LGUs must consider all WCA
requirements and relevant local priorities
in making decisions.
Applicants considering the use of ENRV
should anticipate a rigorous review
process. Using ENRV often requires
additional documentation and more in-
depth analysis than other actions eligible
for credit. The determination of
exceptional resource value and the
contribution of a project to the function
and sustainability of that resource requires
detailed analysis and significant
professional judgment by the TEP.
The review process for potential ENRV
projects relies heavily on pre - application
scoping. Early TEP involvement is vital.
Applicants should solicit feedback from the
TEP and consider any recommendations
before submitting a complete application
to the LGU. The TEP can provide early
input on the value of the resource,
Project eligibility
and the allocation
of credit under
ENRV is
determined by the
LGU with the
concurrence of the
TEP.
and Review Procedures
qualification for ENRV, information needs, and other aspects of
the proposed project. Due to the diverse nature and complexity
involved in utilizing the ENRV credit action, the TEP is
encouraged to consult outside expertise for additional review
and comment when appropriate.
The applicant must submit sufficient information to document the
existence of an eligible resource and for the TEP to determine if
the proposed project warrants the allocation of replacement
credit. The use of ENRV is approved as part of a replacement
or banking plan application in accordance with the standard
WCA decision- making process.
Restoration and protection of wetlands and upland buffer adjacent to trout
steams can be considered for ENRV due to the exceptional benefits they provide.
1
When is use of ENRV appropriate?
1. The LGU and TEP concur that the site meets the criteria to be considered an
exceptional natural resource for purposes of allocating WCA replacement credit.
2. The action proposed will improve or directly contribute to the function and
sustainability of the exceptional resource. The action could include removing a
threat in order to improve sustainability.
3. Sufficient assurance exists that both the site and the conditions that result in the
site being exceptional will be protected by the action proposed, the conservation
easement, and /or other mechanisms.
Qualification for
use of ENRV is
somewhat rare as
other actions
eligible for credit
are usually
available and
exceptional
resources are not
common.
Projects
proposing the
use of ENRV
must comply
with all
applicable
requirements of
MN Rule 8420.
Projects that restore and protect northern white cedar are excellent candidates for ENRV.
Application Requirements for ENRV
The use of ENRV relies heavily on early TEP involvement and the submittal of supplementary information. In
addition to the application requirements of MN Rule 8420.0330, the following information is of particular
importance for the review of potential banking and replacement plan proposals utilizing ENRV:
4 Supporting evidence for qualification as an exceptional natural resource (i.e. identification of state - listed
species and associated habitat, rare plant community location and composition, wildlife travel corridor and
discussion of significance, supporting documentation for sensitive surface waters, etc.). See page 3 of this
guidance for details.
I A wetland delineation documenting the presence of wetland on the project site which either is an
exceptional natural resource or will contribute to the function and sustainability of an exceptional resource.
4 A description of the actions proposed and how they will improve the function and sustainability of the
exceptional natural resource (this could involve a functional assessment).
4 A description of potential credit allocation, and supporting rationale, based on this guidance and WCA
rule.
14 The identification of measurable performance standards with an associated monitoring plan.
14 Identification of the conservation easement area (easement recorded after plan approval). To the extent
practicable, the conservation easement should cover both the area restored and the exceptional resource
itself (if different).
2
•
•
"Exceptional"
Natural Resources
♦ Exceptional Resources. The WCA rule provides a
list of exceptional resources. They include habitat
for state - listed endangered or threatened species,
rare native plant communities, special fish and
wildlife resources, sensitive surface waters, and
others determined to be exceptional by the TEP.
See MN Rule 8420.0526, Subp. 8 for details. A
site containing one of these resources, however,
does not necessarily qualify for ENRV.
+ Public Value. An exceptional resource is
somewhat rare and of special value to the public
because of the functions it provides. Exceptional
resources are also typically difficult to replace,
resulting in a permanent loss of function when
impacted (i.e. white cedar swamps and bogs).
What is considered exceptional will vary across the
state based on abundance, functional benefits
provided, statewide or national significance,
watershed needs, and local values.
♦ Qualification as Exceptional. A site that contains
a feature listed in rule cis exceptional (i.e. rare
native plant community) does not automatically
qualify cis exceptional for allocating ENRV credit.
The LGU and TEP must determine that the resource
is exceptional within the context of the watershed,
Pine marten rely on large tracts of contiguous wetland
and upland habitat, including conifer swamps.
region, or state and consistent with local priorities.
For example, a wildlife travel corridor primarily
used by raccoons is dearly not exceptional.
♦ Functional Assessments. The Minnesota Routine
Assessment Method for evaluating wetland
functions (MnRAM) can be used to assist in
determining if a site is exceptional and to support
the applicability of ENRV for allocating credit. For
example, if a site is expected to be a significant
wildlife resource, MnRAM can be used as evidence
to support its exceptional rating. MnRAM ratings
of high or exceptional, however, do not necessarily
mean the site qualifies as "exceptional" for ENRV.
t Approved Plans. BWSR approved plans can
identify local or regional goals for the restoration
or protection of specific wetland types or functions
that may be considered exceptional for ENRV.
+ Functional Gain. Meeting the definition of
exceptional doesn't automatically result in project
approval or the granting of replacement credit.
The actions proposed must improve the Tong -term
function and sustainability of the exceptional
resource to a degree sufficient to justify the
allocation of WCA replacement credit.
Ecological Suitability
TEPs should pay particular attention to the ecological
suitability and sustainability requirements of MN Rule
8420.0522, Subp. 5 when evaluating proposals. In
determining the value of a resource and the contributions of a
proposed action, TEPs can also consider any of the following:
• Wetland types or characteristics that have been
significantly lost in the watershed, including current trends
in wetland and habitat loss, fragmentation, or
degradation.
• Habitat connectivity and proximity to public lands or
natural areas (i.e. Wildlife Management Areas).
• Sites that meet, or will meet, the criteria to qualify as a
Scientific and Natural Area (as determined by the DNR).
• Wildlife habitat requirements for important species.
• Compatibility with adjacent land use (both current and
projected).
• Watershed needs and the benefit of the project to the
ecological functions of the watershed.
3
Allocating ENRV Credit
Credit should be allocated based on the degree a project contributes to the
restoration and protection of an exceptional natural resource. The exceptional
resource itself can be a wetland, public water, or upland. Proposed actions
should directly benefit the exceptional function(s) of the resource and must have
Tong -term and sustainable results. Eligible actions include restoration and
preservation of the exceptional resource itself or adjacent wetland and upland
areas. The project must include a restoration component to be eligible.
While preservation is often an important component of an ENRV project,
restoration activities generally provide more value by improving the function of
the exceptional resource in addition to preserving it. Restoration and protection
of resources that are susceptible to future impacts generally provide more
value than those Tess susceptible due to protection provided by other sources.
The following provides suggested ranges of credit allocation based on the
above generalities. The actual amount of credit may be more or less based on
project specifics and the TEP's recommendation.
1)
2)
3)
4)
Eligible Actions
Restoration of an exceptional wetland by reestablishing
natural hydrology.
Restoration of an exceptional wetland by reestablishing
permanent native, non - invasive vegetation.
Restoration of wetland or upland adjacent to an
exceptional resource when the restoration activity
significantly improves the water quality or habitat
functions of the exceptional resource.
Preservation of wetland or upland in combination with a
qualifying restoration activity (details on page 5).
Duck nesting habitat adjacent to a
restored prairie pothole in SW MN.
Credit Range
50 to 100 percent
25 to 50 percent
(75% for white cedar)
25 to 50 percent
1 2.5 percent
Local
Government
Units must have
TEP concurrence
to approve the
allocation of
credit under
ENRV.
General Considerations for Credit Allocation
t Restoration. "Restoration" refers to re-
establishment of the natural pre - settlement
conditions of a wetland or upland habitat that has
been previously degraded or converted to another
type by human activity. A wetland that is both
hydrologically and vegetatively degraded must
have both components restored.
4 Threat of Degradation or Loss. Consider threats
to the exceptional resource when evaluating
projects for potential ENRV credit.
i Buffer. Wetland areas restored or preserved
under ENRV should have a buffer adequate to
protect the wetland and its function in perpetuity.
LGUs should consider the specifications of MN Rule
8420.0522, Subp. 6 for minimum buffer width
requirements and credit amounts.
•
+ Habitat Connections. Activities on adjacent
upland can include the restoration or preservation
of important wildlife habitat connections and travel
corridors. Upland should be connected to wetlands
being restored or preserved and directly
contribute to the function and sustainability of the
exceptional resource.
4 Flooding. Although rare, restoration of hydrology
can include removing excess water from a
degraded site, i.e. restoring the natural hydrology
of a white cedar swamp degraded from a
roadway that blocked normal flow patterns and
impounded excess water.
Timeframe. Restoration credit can only be granted
for sites degraded by legal human activity that
occurred at least 10 years prior to application.
4
•
•
Preservation as a Component of ENRV
ENRV credit cannot be granted for preservation alone. However, ENRV
replacement credit can be allocated for the preservation of exceptional
wetlands when the project includes a significant restoration component.
Typically, restoration of native, non - invasive vegetation or hydrology
must occur on at least 25 percent of the project area. Restoration could
be of a portion of the exceptional wetland itself, or of adjacent buffer
if it substantially improves the function and sustainability of the
exceptional resource. Preservation credit can only be granted for
areas of native, non - invasive vegetation that do not require
management intervention.
To be eligible for preservation credit as part of ENRV, the TEP must also
determine that there is a high probability the wetland proposed for
preservation will be degraded or impacted and that the wetland either:
A. Contains or benefits an exceptional resource;
B. Is a type or function that is rare, difficult to replace, or of high
value to the watershed;
C. Contains a rare or declining plant community; or
D. Is of a type that is not likely to regenerate, such as northern white
cedar.
Allocation of credit for preservation under ENRV is not limited by land
ownership or area of the state. However, MN Rule 8420.0526, Subp. 9
and BWSR Preservation Guidance should be consulted for additional
details.
Feeding and resting habitat for migrating scaup is of
international importance.
Avoid allocating credit for actions or sites that will
depend on perpetual, on -going management to be
successful. Focus on achieving sustainable results.
Preservation can be considered for portions
of sites containing a significant northern
white cedar component.
Assessment Tools to Assist in
Credit Allocation
Functional assessment methods (such as MnRAM)
should not be used as the sole determinant of credit.
However, such inventory and assessment methods can
be useful tools to assist the TEP in determining the
functional gain and success of a project as well as the
resulting credit allocation in accordance with
identified performance standards. For example, the
more important the function and the greater the
increase, the more justification for a higher credit
allocation within the possible range. The following
are some examples of such tools:
• MnRAM
• Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) for MN Wetlands
• The Hydrogeomorphic Approach for Assessing
Wetland Functions (HGM)
• An Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) appropriate for the
location and primary function of the site.
• Forest stand inventories and assessments.
• Hydrologic monitoring.
Applicants should coordinate with the TEP to include
appropriate assessment tools in the restoration plan.
5
Technical Resources
Many sources of information are available for the LGU
and TEP to consider in reviewing project proposals to
determine if a site is exceptional and if a proposed
activity warrants the allocation of wetland replacement
credit. This information can vary depending on the specific
resource and location. All relevant information can be
considered, including:
• Natural resource management plans, wetland
inventories, or ecological studies.
• Topographic and
information, aerial
sources.
hydrologic maps, soil survey
photographs, and similar data
• Information on rare, endangered, or threatened
species and critical habitat.
• Minnesota's Sensitive Lakeshore Identification Manual,
County Biological Survey, Natural Heritage
Information System, and other fisheries, wildlife, and
habitat surveys.
• Other published literature and technical reports.
• Input from local, state, and federal resource
management agency technical professionals.
• MnRAM also contains a list of special features that can
be useful as a starting point for making this
determination.
See the BWSR website for examples of
exceptional resources and a list of approved
ENRV projects.
A decorah shale wetland may be considered exceptional in southern MN.
Clean Water Act Coordination
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible 0
for approving wetland mitigation credit under
the federal Clean Water Act. To increase the
likelihood that ENRV credit will be acceptable for
both the state and federal programs, applicants
are encouraged to consult with the Corps early in
the process, before a full application is prepared
and concurrent with TEP pre - application scoping.
Projects that restore and protect spawning habitat for
northern pike or other important species can be eligible for
ENRV.
BWSR Guidance, July 1, 2010
The primary authors of this guidance are:
• Les Lemm, WCA Coordinator
• Dale Krystosek, Senior Wetland Specialist
This document is available on the BWSR
website and may be revised periodically.
Check the website for the most current
version. www.bwsr.state.mn.us /wetlands
Contact your Local Government Unit or
BWSR Wetland Specialist for additional
information.
6
FMR I Is your community a Blue Star community?
(- - c
• Friends of the
Mississippi River
Working to protect the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities area
Page 1 of 3
Is your community a Blue Star
community?
Minnesota has a brand new
award program for
communities that excel at
protecting our water quality
from urban runoff pollution:
The Blue Star Award for
Excellence in Community
Stormwater Management.
While many cities and
townships work to keep our
water clean by reducing urban
runoff, there are a few
communities in our state that
exceed state standards and go
the extra mile to protect our
waters. That's why FMR, in
partnership with Emmons &
Olivier Resources, Inc and
several local partner
organizations teamed up to
create the Blue Star Award.
The Blue Star Award is
Minnesota's only award for communities that exceed minimum standards and
make the extra effort to protect our water. The award is designed to offer
Recognizing Excellence in
Community Stormwater
Management
http://www.fmr.org/news/current/blue_star_award_program-2010-09 12/8/2010
FMR 1 Is your community a Blue Star community? Page 2 of 3
communities that excel in stormwater management the positive public recognition
they deserve.
The award program is available to any Minnesota community. The program rates
key community indicators such as city development codes, site - design guidelines
and post - construction stormwater management standards. Any community that
scores high enough automatically earns the Blue Star Award for Excellence in
Community Stormwater Management.
Is your community a Blue Star community?
The award is more than a symbol for city and township officials who go the extra
mile. It's also a fast and easy way for Minnesota citizens to gauge how well their
community is protecting our waters.
In the first six weeks of the program, more than 20 cities have registered at the
Blue Star website [http: / /www.fmr. org /http: / /www.bluestarmn.org /] and completed a
self- assessment. The winners are clear!
Grand Rapids, long known as a clean -water community, is the runaway leader so
far. Growing communities like Plymouth, Woodbury, Victoria and Blaine are also
high scorers, as is FMR's home city of St. Paul. Congrats to all the Blue Star Cities!
Information on all the Blue Star Award winners is available on the Blue Star site
[http: / /www.fmr .org /http: / /www.bluestarmn.org /] . If your community is a Blue Star
community — congratulations! Help spread the word about the great work your
leaders are doing to protect Minnesota's waters. If not, it's time to ask your city to
take the challenge and earn their Blue Star!
For more information visit Blue Star
[http: / /www.fmr .org /http: / /www.bluestarmn.org /] , or contact FMR's Blue Star
Program Coordinator and Watershed Program Director Trevor Russell at 651 -222-
2193 x18 or by selecting "Trevor Russell" under "Category" via our contact form
[http: / /www.fmr. org /http: / /www.fuir.org /contact] .
— Trevor Russell, Watershed Program Director
Friends of the Mississippi River 1 36o North Robert Street 1 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
voice: 651- 222 -2193 1 fax: 651- 222 -6005 1
http://www.frnr.org/news/current/bluestar award_program- 2010 -09 12/8/2010
•
•
Blue Star Award Program - Leaderboard Page 1 of 2
(http://www.bluestarmn.orgh
Blue Star Program
• Home (1)
• About ( /about)
• News (/news)
• Participating Communities ( /participating communities)
• Leaderboard ( /leaderboard)
• Register ( /users /new)
• Contact (jcontact)
Blue Star Award Recipients
The Blue Star Award gratefully recognizes the following, award - winning communities that have gone
above and beyond permit minimums and have made a special commitment to Minnesota's water.
Below are the top- scoring award winners overall. Congratulation to our very best Minnesota Blue
Star Communities!
On behalf of our program partners, fenders and advisors, as well as current and future residents and
visitors to our great state: thank you for helping keep Minnesota's lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands
safe, healthy and clean for future generations.
Minnesota's Best Clean Water Communities (overall score):
Rank Community Overall Score Total Points
1 Independence 76% 145 / 190
2 Grand Rapids 75% 143 / 190
3 Plymouth 68% 131 / 192
4 Lino lakes 65% 127 / 194
5 Blaine 65% 121 / 186
6 Victoria 64% 124 / 192
7 St. Paul 64% 118 / 183
8 Hopkins 64% 123 / 190
• 9 Woodbury 63% 119 / 187
10 Stillwater 60% 117 / 192
http: / /www.bluestarmn.org /leaderboard 12/8/2010
•
Item 6E
2011 Proposed City of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting Schedule Dates
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
ID Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011— (This is the only meeting date
change and is the only meeting not on the last Wednesday of the
month.)
•