Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/2000 Env Bd Packet• • City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall June 28, 2000 6:30 PM Agenda 1. Call to Order /Pass Sign -In Sheet 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Citizen Comments 5. Environmental Board Business A. Landscape Ordinance B. DNR Project C. Environmental Education Packet D. Letter of Recommendation /Brauer & AES 6. Project Review A. Twin City FAB B. Marmon Keystone 7. Program /Project Updates A. Restoration Updates B. Forestry Updates C. Solid Waste /Recycling Updates 8. Other Discussion Items 9. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : May 31, 2000 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:57 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Maurene Davidson, Amy Donlin (arrived at 6:39 p.m.), Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, Dave March, Teresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus MEMBERS ABSENT : None. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • A. March 29, 2000 - Davidson asked if the Chair an 'ce Chair were elected or nominated. Asleson advised that the Board elects its o Vice Chair. Davidson asked that the meeting minutes reflect they were elect Davidson noted that Lanyon is elected as the Chair. Asleso Acting Chair until he det with his work commi stated this is correct and sug cting Chair" but she thought he was it was decided that Lanyon would be the r he could accommodate that responsibility along he issue would be raised again. Acting Chair Lanyon it be addressed later in the meeting. Kukonen moved to approve the March 29, 2000 meeting minutes as amended above. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. April 26, 2000 - Kukonen requested a correction to Page 4, B, third paragraph, to indicate "Wetlands filter ..." rather than "Wetland filter ..." In response to Davidson regarding the preceding sentence, Asleson stated the minutes should indicate: "Houses are being built along the buffered areas and residents are starting to get concerned because fences are coming down." Donlin arrived at 6:39 p.m. • Davidson moved to approve the April 26, 2000 meeting minutes as amended above. Kukonen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 APPROVAL OF AGENDA In consideration of audience members, Asleson requested that Agenda Item 6A be considered following Item 4. The Board agreed. The following items were added to the meeting agenda: 8A. Tree Mitigation Negotiations 8B. Landscape Ordinance 8C. Lighting Ordinance The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS Asleson noted the attendance of Nancy Klebba, interested reside and Naturalist at Tamarack Nature Center. No other comments were made. PROJECT REVIEW A. GM Development / Apollo Drive CUP / Stockpi - Asleson explained the Apollo Business District is located on Apollo Dri a gra ng area consideration is just south and west of the Correctional Facility. He nip£ tier from John Johnson, engineering consultant for G.M. Development h de ribes the project request. G.M. Development would like to sto . � p � e '" base material in an existing borrow pit on the northeast corner, fill an e d drainage swale, build a new pond and swale (includes a length of pipe rface elevations on the south side of the project, and build a berm on the e John Johnson, engineer for the pplicant, presented an explanation of the background of the Apollo Business District and their attempt to develop the site. He explained that due to the low elevation, they believe they have lost several potential sales. Because of that, they are proposing a grading plan to import soils to bring the elevation up to a higher level. Mr. Johnson stated they would like to begin that process to import soils and also plan to undertake the drainage solutions necessary to serve this property, except for the far western edge. He stated they made application to the City to begin initial stockpiling which can be done up to 5,000 yards per parcel and then applied for a SUP to conduct the necessary grading and to exceed more than 5,000 yards. Mr. Johnson presented the proposed grading plan and explained the elevation changes that would occur. He requested the Environmental Board's review of this preliminary grading plan and to put into place drainage elements. Mr. Johnson reviewed the direction of drainage, existing storm sewer system, and NURP ponds. He stated they are attempting to install a good drainage system and understand staff has some different ideas 2 • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 which they would like to discuss. Mr. Johnson noted the joint access points and advised of the County's restriction on access points and need to extend the culvert to get beyond the joint driveways. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Udhe planted clover on the site several years ago and staff has indicated there are now areas of natural vegetation. Donlin requested an explanation of the location of this site in relationship to the proposed automobile site. Asleson pointed out the subject site. Donlin stated there is beautiful prairie bush clover on this site. Gary Udhe, representing G.M. Development, stated he planted the clover on the site. Asleson noted there are other plants as well on the site. Asleson stated this is a commercial /industrial area. He noted the location of the stockpile and stated there is nothing wrong with this request as long as the Rice Creek Watershed District engineers approve the request. Asleson explained that all the water from the subwatershed district ends up on this parcel before draining into Marshan Lake and noted the area that drainage will be captured prior to draining in the lake. He used a map to identify the surrounding areas which drain to the subje ite. Mr. Johnson added further details regarding the irige ar` d noted the area that is very flat. Asleson stated from the landscape scale st from ending up on his site. He noted the N direct water toward the ponding ar may be more acceptable than a needed to direct drainage to t expensive to construct. applicant cannot stop the drainage being proposed and suggestion to s" n stated that, perhaps, a biodiverse screen noted the location of a pipe that would be Apollo Drive, which would be quite Discussion ensued regardin _ e of area to be buffered, sandy soil types, and need for mitigation. Asleson summarized the outstanding issues are the berm, biodiversity aspects, and the water surface treatment. Mr. Johnson reviewed the elevations of the site and Apollo Drive and stated he is not sure it is possible to place a pipe under Apollo Drive. Because of that, he is attempting to use what they have and create a pond to take care of what they need. He stated they cannot be the solution for the entire area which he estimated to be several hundred acres in size. Mr. Johnson stated he is willing to consider alternatives, if a feasible one is presented. Acting Chair Lanyon explained that sometimes ponds are designed with steep sides which do not add much to the community so if it is possible to develop a train of ponds to treat and retain water, it would be better. 3 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 Mr. Johnson stated the culvert under Apollo Drive is lower than the culvert under the freeway by several feet and the pond is several feet under that. The outlet will then go to another pond with a submerged outlet that is slightly lower than the elevation of Apollo Drive which will force the water to leave the site at a different rate than exists today. Trehus asked how much water will leave the site. Mr. Johnson stated he has made that calculation but does not have that information available tonight. He estimated 34.5 acres will be incorporated into this plan and drain through a ponding system and out of the site. The rest of the acreage is kept in on -site ponds. Mr. Johnson advised of the Rice Creek Watershed District restriction to not allow a higher run -off rate than exists today. He estimated there will be 60% impervious surface. Donlin asked how rain events would be handled that are similar to what occurred several years ago where there were three back -to -back 100 -year events. Mr. Johnson reviewed the criteria the ponds can handle and how that criteria is established. March asked if staff's concern is the volume of water or explained the NURP ponds are designed to store a vol event but after large rain events, there is a peak of d• ity of water. Asleson e of water for a certain rain Davidson noted the NURP ponds remove abo % the n trients, whereas, it would be ideal to remove a higher percentage. Mr. Johnson explained that the NURP pon'' �od job of removing contaminants from low rain events, such as a tw ' ram >.11. He then explained how a larger rain event impacts the NURP pond. ' the . intention to address the drainage issues rather than expecting the incl. a . cc wners to do so. Donlin complimented hnsot•n his past work on these types of projects. March asked if there is potenti . for reconstruction of some of the ponds to function to hold the flow and provide treatment. Asleson explained how the ponds have been designed to do both. Trehus stated he becomes concerned about any project that places more water into one of the City's lakes. Asleson asked if they can look at the feasibility of placing the pipe under Apollo Drive and possible methods of financing that cost. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if there is a way to have Pond 1 service more acreage to provide additional on -site infiltration, or if additional ponds can be placed. Donlin noted a lot of infiltration will occur since the ponds will have a sand bottom, at least until the pond silts up. Asleson commented on the importance of properly designing these ponds to assure infiltration. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 Mr. Johnson commented on the natural water table in this area and impact caused by the construction of the road, deep sanitary sewer, and other projects. He advised that all of the ponds are in nonhydric soils and are dry because of the low water table level. Trehus asked about the suggestion of staff to connect Pond 1 to the other side of Apollo Drive. Mr. Johnson stated Pond 2 is on the south side of Apollo Drive and the proposal is to divert water from the freeway culvert to the west into Pond 2 until it is at an elevation to outflow into the culvert under Apollo Drive. Staff's proposal is to connect Pond 1 with Pond 2 via a pipe under Apollo Drive. March asked if there is an opportunity to install a cattail wetland to act as a filter to Marshan Lake. Asleson stated he understands the desire for a vegetated filter strip but he does not think there is an opportunity to do so. Mr. Johnson stated this site is a long way (three - quarters to one mile) upstream from that point and he does not know what is available from Lake Drive to Marshan Lake to provide additional treatment. Also, the area is very flat. March advised of a different project that successfully b ered sediments via a vegetative filter. Acting Chair Lanyon asked the members to ad' °•erm'issue. Donlin suggested plantings that do not req , tenses watering such as prairie stock and oak trees. Davidson noted that residents plan can be presented to the buffer with a wooded typ trees planted in layers. sual year -round screen. Asleson stated a area including the option of a vegetation well as prairie vegetation. He suggested oak O'Connell asked if a berm or getation would better block sounds. Mr. Johnson stated he does not know what the uses will be but the City has previously indicated the uses on that edge must be compatible with the residential homes to the west. He agreed that landscaping will provide a better visual buffer a story and a half off the ground than a berm would provide. Acting Chair Lanyon asked why there is a need to do anything on the berm at this point. Mr. Johnson stated they now have the opportunity to obtain fill material at a lower cost. Because of that, they would like the ability to accept that fill material and stockpile it until it is needed. Acting Chair Lanyon stated that depending on what is built, a berm may be better or a vegetative screen may be better. Until it is known what is being built, that decision can be delayed. 5 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 Mr. Udhe stated at the site plan review the Board will have the opportunity to identify acceptable plantings for the user to put into place. However, if the berm is not identified until that point, it would be quite costly to import the soil needed for the berm. Kukonen asked if the residents want a berm. Mr. Udhe stated when the property was rezoned they were told a berm would be put into place. Another neighborhood meeting will be held next Tuesday and the issue will be raised again. Acting Chair Lanyon stated he thinks there will be support for a visual barrier but he would encourage them to consider options other than a berm. Mr. Johnson stated a berm is beneficial at ground level and may be more perceived than real. Mr. Johnson stated he thinks residents will perceive a need for a vertical component that is more than a row of trees. Donlin stated when the theater property was developed, a six -foot berm was created to buffer their property from night -time vehicle lights. She commented on the psychological benefit of having a visual screen and not being able to see a use. Trehus asked if the Board needs to stipulate a buffer a "given." Mr. Johnson stated they will listen to be required and then the applicant can assure i Mr. Johnson stated he would like to hear a can with the drainage plan or is there somet nature of the buffer /screening on t est side of the site, or if it is rehus suggested a berm ly deigned and appropriate. March stated he thinks the B screening as opposed to pine. He stated his inte es: 1) have they done what they e they should evaluate; and, 2) the of the project. ise people of the benefits of vegetative d recommended a mix of red oaks and white vegetative screens as opposed to berms. Davidson stated her agreemen :A' d suggestion that a woodland buffer, which is environmentally more sound and beautiful, be presented to the residents. Trehus asked if the ponds can be made deeper. Asleson stated that will not matter due to the level of the water table. Mr. Johnson advised of their monitoring well findings. Kukonen stated he believes the drainage issues have been satisfied but he would support further investigation of staff's proposal for a pipe under Apollo Drive. O'Connell asked if the applicant would object to a Board Member attending the neighborhood meeting next Tuesday to present the option of a vegetative berm. Mr. Johnson stated they would welcome that opportunity. O'Connell stated she will plan to attend that meeting. 6 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 Trehus raised the issue of the short-term impact of stockpiling the soil on the site. Asleson stated they already have a storage permit up to 5,000 cubic feet. Mr. Udhe explained the CUP will allow additional storage and relocation of drainage ditch and berm. Donlin expressed concern with the stockpiling of road aggregate and possible leachate into the soil. She urged the developer to not lean heavily toward stockpiling that type of material. Mr. Johnson noted the material will be used under road pavements and parking lots and building pads. He pointed out the proposed stockpile location is centrally located so it will not have to be moved often until it is used. Mr. Johnson stated they already have a stockpiling permit but they are asking to stockpile additional material which will be needed to raise the elevation of the lots to match the criteria established by the County. Davidson moved to require a buffer on the west side of the project, that a vegetative woodland buffer is to be presented to the residents, to recommend a woodland and vegetative buffer rather than a berm for environmental and aesthetic reasons, and to direct staff to research the feasibility of connecting Pond 1 with e pond south of Apollo Drive. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimo ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. New Members - The Environmental Board Memb introduced themselves. B. DNR Project - Asleson noted the May 25 Unit of Government Work Group Agenda, their April 20, 2000 mee ' inute and "Useful ... Guidelines" drafted by the DNR. He presented an update ' a • ec d the DNR request for Lino Lakes Land Use and inventory informati • s '. rigs ated his involvement is to provide the requested information. In response to Davidson, As tated the Anoka Conservation District submitted a Greenway Coalition grant app ation but it is not yet approved. Kukonen asked if the wildlife fieldwork is to include Lino Lakes and Hugo. Asleson stated it could include both. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if there is an opportunity for Lino Lakes to be more heavily involved to improve its inventory data of the areas involved. Asleson stated that is correct and data on rare and endangered species will also be identified. Donlin advised that a site along Elmcrest was viewed and an area with a beautiful wetland was found which contained three pairs of yellow- headed blackbirds. She stated this project is very exciting and she finds it to be a "golden opportunity" to fill in the missing pieces. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 C. Environmental Education Packet - Acting Chair Lanyon noted the environmental education packets which would be distributed to homeowners, particularly those in ecological sensitive areas. He stated he does not have a good idea of what to do with this information, other than on Earth Day, and asked if all new buyers will get one. Asleson suggested homeowners along the buffer and greenway areas or adjacent to wetlands receive a copy. Acting Chair Lanyon agreed and stated he thought certain parcels would be targeted within buffer zones to receive this information. Davidson reviewed how the last flyer was compiled and copied. Acting Chair Lanyon noted that some of the material can be photocopied and updated brochures requested. He stated that he thinks a significant percentage of homebuyers have web access either at work or at home. He suggested the Board consider a web site that allows access to this information and volunteered to create such a web site that provides links to other sites such as the DNR, University of Minnesota Extension, etc. Davidson suggested some of that information also be i uded in the informational packet. Acting Chair Lanyon stated it may also be pos Press point newcomers to this web page. He indic possibility. Consensus was reached that the Plants, Butterfly Gardening, Cr Management, Yard Waste ve t Star Tribune and Pioneer he would check into that eb p .:e headings should be: Benefits of Native d Habitat, Lawn Care, Shoreline Ling, and Aquascaping. Davidson suggested tha idditio , the City's newsletter advertise the availability of this information at City Hall. Acting Chair Lanyon indicated support to find a sponsor to provide an informational refrigerator magnet. O'Connell stated residents could also be informed that additional information is available at City Hall. March noted that new homeowners often want to landscape quickly so it would be nice to provide them with some information and alternatives. However, he agreed the full informational packet may be too much information. Acting Chair Lanyon stated he will investigate the opportunity for a refrigerator magnet and the web page option. Consensus was reached to direct staff to reproduce the information with the cost funded from the budget, to remove the canoe and include "Compliments of the Environmental Board" under the words Lino Lakes, staff to research options for green colored folders, 8 • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 the Board to volunteer to assemble the folders /information, Donlin to contact Doug Voss regarding the waterfowl information, quantity of 250 folders will be created, Davidson to provide editing of information, and staff to include a reference in the City newsletter that this environmental packet is available at the City Hall. D. Letter of Recommendation / Brauer & AES - Davidson stated she volunteered to put this information together based on the Board's input. Kukonen stated he has some information to provide. Acting Chair Lanyon suggested that this information be provided to Davidson by June 15, 2000 so she can prepare a draft letter which can be included in the next meeting packet for consideration at the June meeting. E. PCA Volunteer Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program - Asleson explained that Donlin has added this agenda item to discuss ground water quality. He noted the information regarding the. PCA "Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program" (GWMAP) which is a volunteer program. He r iewed the City program for well monitoring and testing for coliform and nitrates. offered to work with the Board if they are interested in pursuing groundwater moni Donlin asked if the test packets can be made a the ity Hall. Asleson stated the City received a limited number of free test packets the County usually charges a fee for them. He stated he will check to see i ssib to have them available at the City Hall. PROJECT REVIEW A. GM Development / Apo Dri Stockpiles - This item was considered earlier in the meeting. PROJECT UPDATES A. Behms / Rice Lake Estates Park Prairie Projects - Asleson reported the Behms / Rice Lake Estates Park Prairie projects will be seeded with native materials in about a week and will be interesting to watch. B. Clearwater Creek III Environmental Updates - Asleson noted the draft environmental educational handout for Clearwater Creek and the rendering of the 6" by 9" buffer signs that will be posted along the buffer area about three feet off the ground. He advised the developer is working on the eradication of Buckhorn and there is also some Purple Loosestrife in the area. Northern Prairie Restoration will be seeding the area soon and is also working on the invasive plant issues. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 C. Forestry Updates - Asleson advised that the Forestry Division planted Hackberries on the boulevard areas that were included in the last fall contract. Trees that died from last year are being replaced. D. Solid Waste / Recycling Updates - Asleson presented the summary tonnage report for Spring Recycling Day. He advised that almost 51 tons of recyclables were brought in this spring as compared to 33 tons for last fall. He commented that this was a very successful event. Donlin commented on the Earth Day cleanup and "Band -Aid" approach currently being taken to clean the parks and roadsides and, yet, no one is learning about the negative consequence of littering and dumping debris. She suggested a discussion be held of strict enforcement of littering violations so it is no longer tolerated. Donlin also suggested a sign be posted at the City's border warning of the consequences of littering. Asleson stated that the Police Department can be contacted about this concern. Acting Chair Lanyon asked Donlin to draft a letter to t olice Department for consideration at the next meeting. Donlin agreed. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Tree Mitigation Negotiations - Due to th�tour, is item was postponed to the June 28, 2000 meeting. B. Landscape Ordinance - Asles and it will be presented at th a . 211 • meeting. f is working on the Landscape Ordinance C. Lighting Ordinance - rs ask if any revisions have been made to the Lighting Ordinance and commented o s mportance of having one to address the new commercial and industrial dev opments. Asleson stated he will determine the status of that ordinance. This item was postponed to the June 28, 2000 meeting. D. Election of Chair - Trehus moved to elect Scott Lanyon as the Chair and Maurine Davidson as the Vice Chair of the Environmental Board. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on June 28, 2000. There being no further business, Davidson moved to adjourn at 8:57 p.m. Trehus seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 11 Memorandum To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: 05/23/00 Re: DNR Project I have attached the agenda for the May 25 WUI Local Unit of Government Work Group Agenda, the minutes from the April 20 meeting, and a " Useful...Guidelines" drafted by the DNR. I will update you at the Environmental Board Meeting. • WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE WUI Local Unit of Government Work Group 3rd Work Session _ Thursday, May 25, 2000 _ 1:00 to -3:15 pm PRELIMINARY AGENDA 1:00 pm ❑ Introductions ❑ Meeting Agenda (who will be giving status reports ?) ❑ Minutes from 3/14/00 Meeting (any corrections ?) ❑ Date for June Meeting (select June 15, 19, or 22 - am or pm) ❑ Work Group Member /Consultant List (hand out revised list & ck again) ❑ Work Assignment Matrix (any changes or additions ?) ❑ Miscellaneous Announcements PROJECT STATUS & PROGRESS ON WORK TO DATE - Reports & Discussion 1:30 pm Basic Tools for Working with LUG's ❑ checklists for natural resource guidance - preliminary examples (bring copies to meeting) ❑ useful NR documents/language (see 5/5/00 e-mail - submit other examples) 1:50 pm Assistance to LUG's NR Inventory & Assessments ❑ preliminary GIS maps ❑ Mn Land Cover Classification system mapping ❑ status reports from work group teams /members ❑ next steps? [- 2:10 pm take 10 minute break] 2:30 pm Review & Comment on LUG documents ❑ preliminary review of Hugo "Comp Land Use Regulations" (see attached) ❑ other status reports & discussion ❑ next steps? -2:50 pm Assistance to LUG's on Subdivision Planning ❑ status reports & discussion ❑ next steps? -3:00 pm Other Information Swap / Status Reports ❑ Bring information, examples & suggestions to share on other's work assignments -3:15 pm Adjourn • • Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)- Local Unit of Government Workgroup ( LUG) Minutes from 4/20/00 Work Group Meeting Attendance: Peggy Sand (chair), Bill Penning, Con Christianson, Duane Shodeen, Lillian Baker, Meredith Cornett, Jean Mouelle, Don Mueller, Tom Polasik, Dale Homuth, Tom Hovey, Molly Shodeen, Joan Galli, Marty Asleson, Dan Cornejo, Kate Drewry, John Saxhaug, Samantha Hayes (facilitator) Attendees introduced themselves, agreed to the agenda, and affirmed the work group expectations. Project Overview & Discussion Peggy Sand gave an overview of the purpose of this work group. Tom Hovey will contact John VondeLinde or Jeff Perry of Anoka County Parks, Tom Polasik will check with Jim Luger of Washington Co Parks, and Kate Drewry will contact Jane Harper of Washington County about participating in this work group. Concern was also expressed of the impact that changes to Highway 61 may have and options for the roadway character. Status Reports & Discussion Hugo Peggy provided copies of the 4/16/00 Pioneer Press article on Hugo "Developing, Naturally" which talked about dual projects - 1 being the DNR WUI project, and the other project is a planning charette (intense workshop) approach which Dan Cornejo explained to the group. Specifically, Hugo received $50,000- $75,000 from Metropolitan Council to do a charette process (probably 3 main public events as part of a week of intense work) to develop a community vision on how the land should be developed and how they may address affordible housing goals. This process is expected to come up with recommendations to be used in revising their land regulations. The charette is proposed for mid summer, but timing may be effected by Hugo also starting the process now of hiring an on -staff development director. Hugo's comprehensive plan was adopted in 1996 when no one predicted the current pace of development. Emerging issues include transportation systems and sense of place. Serious concerns were expressed by Bill Penning and other work group members over the timing of the charette, in particular, it should be based on our natural resource inventory which is not expected to be completed until September. Shakopee and Robbinsdale were cited as examples of communities facing similar highway - related issues. Kate Drewry provided information on Hugo's current moratorium which only affects those areas within the MUSA line, but excludes the Wenzel Farm project (now undergoing environmental review) which started before the moratorium went into effect. This week Mike Erickson (formerly with Maplewood) starts as Hugo's new City Administrator. Natural Resource Assessments Joan Galli reported that they are having a consultant assess Blanding turtle habitat and that the study area could be expanded to include Hugo. The group discussed getting a set of GIS maps made of the two cities using various existing data layers such as the natural heritage database. These will be used to conduct some wildlife fieldwork in the two cities in mid -May. Lino Lakes has new soils data. Dale Homuth will follow -up on getting Jacque Stubbs to create the maps. Work is still needed to determine who will do the land cover mapping/natural resource inventory • (MLCCS) and how much of Lino Lakes will be done. Meredith will develop a proposed system for rating the quality of habitats as part of the MLCCS mapping. Lino Lakes Meredith Cornett reported that Lino Lakes is currently having a consultant develop a tree preservation ordinance and a landscaping ordinance. She coordinated with Hannah Dunevitz and various Forestry staff in reviewing drafts and providing input. Meredith, Peggy, and Kris Larson (Minnesota Land Trust) met with Lino's planner Jeff Smyser and environmental staff Marty Asleson to discuss the city's preservation development process and how we may collaborate on a subdivision plan which would incorporate conservation easements and an natural resource management plan. Primary Activities & Products of Project/Work Assignments Peggy walked the group through a simplified 4/19/00 version of the "Primary Activities & Products of Project/Schedule" which organizes DNR's work on the WUI LUG project into 6 primary activities. Samantha Hayes provided directions to the group on filling out a "Work Assignment Matrix" and then each person signed up for which of the 6 primary activities for which city they will work on. The group briefly discussed the results and gaps, including the need for overall coordinators for each topic /activity. (See attached results of sign -up - including a few suggestions in brackets for suggested people who were not in attendance. Peggy will check with Sharon, Suzann, and Bart; Marty Asleson will check with Lino Lake's park staff Rick D.) Information Swap The group discussed various publications that will be useful in this project. Anoka County has a natural resource management plan for their park lands. Dan C. will get DNR a copy of Hugo's Comprehensive Plan and amendments. Meredith brought up a number of good natural resource inventory and management planning documents, including from Cottage Grove, Burnsville, Woodbury, Belle Plaine, etc. Joan mentioned the "Planning for Birds" booklet. Peggy mentioned Biko's sustainable development model ordinances. Kate mentioned the watershed district's guide to surface water. Also mentioned were an article on management in Restoration Ecology and reference manuals put together by the Center for Watershed Management. Meredith offered to develop a matrix which we can use to list useful documents with the expectation that other work group members will contribute information to the matrix on other useful documents. Duane Shodeen suggested that throughout this project we keep track of the barriers and problems we face in the process. Wrap - Up/Next Steps The next WUI LUG work group meeting was set for Thursday, May 25, 1 -3:30 pm in the Metro Region Conference Room. At the May meeting, work group members will be expected to report on progress they are making on the primary activities they working on - with emphasis on developing checklists and making significant progress on the various natural resource assessments. Meeting participants completed meeting evaluation forms. a) U The plan contains a good example of a natural resource section, including significant natural communities and rare species. This plan identifies the standard "Areas in Need of Protection," but specifically addresses "Critical Habitat/Endangered - Threatened species" (p. 3) and preserving biological diversity (p. 10 -11). A table of rare species (p. 11) and natural communities (p. 13) present in Red Wing provides important specifics. It also acknowledges the need to develop a strong open space preservation /protection program (p. 4, 7 -8) and explicitly addresses both farmland preservation and urban forestry needs (p. 5). This document serves as a checklist of critical natural resource components that should be included in comprehensive plans. It contains a description of the benefits of natural areas and open space, land protection tools, best management practices, and a list of references and examples for several of these categories. The policy addresses the management of Tax Forfeited Trust Lands to maximize biological, social and economic benefits. It contains good examples of language in support of wise stewardship of native flora and fauna and protection of critical natural habitats. It creates a special designation, "Significant Resource Management Areas," and the Procedures section refers specifically to perpetuating "significant examples of the ecological diversity" of the county's natural heritage. John Anderson, City of Belle Plaine, (612) 873 -5553 Brian Peterson, City of Redwing, (612) 388 -6734 Meredith Cornett, DNR Metro Region, (651) 772- 7574 Belle Plaine, MN z oA a) Twin Cities Metro Region St. Louis County, MN Comprehensive Plan for the City of Belle Plaine. 1998. City of Red Wing Comprehensive Guide Plan. 1993. Natural Environment (Section L). Addressing Natural Resources in the Comprehensive Plan. 1998. Metro 2040: A Growth Strategy for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. (Published by the Metropolitan Council). St. Louis County Land Department Policy 2740 -1: Significant Resource Management Areas. 1997. Native Landscaping Ordinances/Weed Ordinances Adapted to Allow Native Landscaping czt a) K ^ ..o i 0 U U 0 i1, a) a) Q 0 'O .9 Q E N U o'a o. -o U T3 r El o 'a c a) o c o '6 o a a� a) a) cn o b R ts4 - , �i a) o a 0 ,� U V o a) 0 g w y O 4 0 040.) o �z -o 00 0 rn 0 H� 3'� o a) o. F. M aN e • U oo •a U o o z cc zPC1U o Useful Natural Resource Documents/Language for Local Government: Examples, Checklists, and Guidelines - compiled by MnDNR - draft 5/5/00 z 0 0 0 Sustainable Development Ordinances V 0 E a) M z 0 el 0 E a) M This chapter is a good overview on the management of natural areas, and can serve as a checklist for important components of Imanagement plans (e.g., avoid fragmentation, maximize interior environments, control exotic species, promote natural disturbance regimes, etc.) The plan puts specific restoration and management recommendations into a landscape context, with information on geology and soils, pre- European settlement vegetation and wildlife, land use history, and present -day vegetation and wildlife. Four distinct restoration and management projects are described, although more detailed plans for implementation will be required. Hannah Dunevitz (651) 772 -7570 Hannah Dunevitz (651) 772 -7570 z Q z Allmann, L. 1997. Natural Areas: Protecting a Vital Community Asset. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Saint Paul. (pp. 77 -89) Management Recommendations for the Koch Petroleum Group Property within the Pine Bend Bluffs Natural Area. 2000. Department of Natural Resources (107 pp.) 0 as 0 it z The plan divides the city into 9 resource management units for which separate goals and strategies are presented. High, medium and low quality natural communities are identified within each management unit, and MCBS natural communities and rare species sites are highlighted. A technical appendix provides more detail about native plant communities, quality and rarity rankings, techniques for restoration and management, and land use planning/protection tools. The report is a comprehensive guide to the natural communities of Cottage Grove, and does an especially nice job of describing their location, quality, and management. The goal of the inventory was to protect and enhance the health of natural areas. It gives some fairly detailed species lists for each of the natural communities inventoried, and assigns a local value, based on the city's comprehensive plan, the ability to link other features in the landscape, etc. Beth Nixon, SEH, Inc., (651) 490 -2054 Kim Lindquist, City of Cottage Grove, (651) 458- 2800; Tony DeMars, Emmons & Olivier Resources, (651) 770 -8448 z 6 E Cottage Grove, MN City of Burnsville Natural Resources Management Plan. 1998. (Prepared by SEH, Inc.). City of Cottage Grove. 1998. Final Report: Natural Resources Inventory. (Prepared by A. R. DeMars formerly of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, & Associates. Currently with Emmons & Olivier Resources) *. Useful Natural Resource Documents/Language for Local Government: Examples, Checklists, and Guidelines - compiled by MnDNR - draft 5/5/00 • Memorandum To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: 05/23/00 Re: Environmental Education Packet This item is on the agenda as a follow -up to last months meeting. We discussed updating this packet at the last meeting. The updated packets would be distributed to homeowners, particularly in ecological sensitive areas. Please bring your ideas and information to the meeting. 1 Memorandum To: Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: May 31, 2000 Re: Ground Water Assessment Program Environmental Board Member Amy Don lin added a discussion of ground water quality to the April Environmental Board Agenda. The PCA has a volunteer program "Ground Water Monitoring and assessment Program" (GWMAP). I have enclosed some of the information from the PCA webpage. 1 czt a Jo Pi bA• � O o -11e) Ali 5 • cn w) o a) - b S:14 CI a c ' o a) o i d o a o at g T b > c-, a) � �. 0.�) tO O OU .1 O O y.., a 0 c 0 , < a) ^' O 'C > CI ' 0 1 0 chi) ', '`"'" • `-' 1 cl 0 Cl) l 0 ,, 01 - 0 a) 0 tw ca y H • w 0 < a" Fr 3 0 0 . a) a) • i - a) cd . 0 0 c.• ct t:in bA s c„n , a) U '1) � O O ,.4"t (1) O 4 N $4 0 "'C aai) O 0 0 O O a) 0 0 E-+ szlo o v °' �• � x 3 00 •O a) oa0�- t • O 5 C:14 0 to 0 on U -0 ' .0 0 O um U 4 U C O, a) cc) 4] cu *if) • "ti as U Q -' C a o cd 8 U O bO O � O a) eri 04-4 - •a) file: / /A:\index.html 00 p O iv 0 N a) ill b) cd a MPCA - Ground Water Mapping and Assessment Program (GWMAP) K Con 0 • • More Information About GWMAP WMAP Objectives WMAP Activities uired to Condu The MPCA is Re How does GWMP Use Wells? 0 E 0 • 0 is GWMAP • • • • • • • ei • For Whom Does GWMAP Provide Services? GWMAP Objectives cn cu ri) c.) >, , .. `° '� a) 7:i a, . ' al ... E a O" d 0i - .� ' . E Ct .,-, C/3 }, 0 o ai 0 3 0 0 3 gc.. •., .o 0 b cn a a) a) tii at 0 4•-0 c .8 E ,, ) 0 b0 o E < 5 bn o N � ,� o o o a-g c. U 0 .O 5 • U g 1v O " .. 15 46ii N a O bA bA s» Cr +' O y �+ � � Y ° bA b bQ " ° i N O in 0 ° 8 g cat 14 v o 8 o ° o .e n . b 3 3 0 ° ° ° w 73 a CI > ° 0 b» o ^r3 , >, °' � U. � b ° ,��,� CI ; ,04, at � c -5p °' r: d C7 0 ., bA a) a) 0 M t w a) •., a a, .- 0.0 04 i., o Q""" ° • ° � • • • • • • • • H a cll GWMAP Activities file: / /A:\index.html 00 w o 4110 Q MPCA - Ground Water Mapping and Assessment Program (GWMAP) ,4 s~ 0 v: a) a) Q 0 a) = e� O a) o `0 3 �' a) o o a, 6 c4 • ,0 "t7 bA C], sa s"' U ~O b a) bA 4 , a) 'C O� O U ,+ m ,.o cC g = v� 3 �, O O y 0� O U bUA 0 3 O �U. A •.., cr 4 3 to O cl al bA o --, 3 U ai a, o • . • • • 0 w The MPCA Is Required To Conduct Ground Water Monitoring EA a) ° - 1 = ', a 7) al o3'b3� Yb0 0 "0 CD E �� , U y`n., E 1 cr °� R, O bA O E bp ai 4 0 3 ) a)) o. bA g 'C3 O • e'er., > 'g cn as E 9 "01 a'") N a] 9 `� E a) g•4 a�.)) b 0 4r U )y W y U O 'C E O >1 � .� ti -0 b ->- b- g 3cu bA x E o- d,0 a)� o Q O s., N O �'O° '°``,� a oO ' ,-, -i+ d v H ° i U " N i a 3 ( r) t� c • 0 c Et) Ii fzINI cu • 1 CI .O g ▪ O o C a) 0 O g bo cd a) 0 Legislative Mandate for Sampling V) � 6. o 7 :1 2 "t 0 i,-, u 0 a) VI 1-4 g 1• 0 ..,0 o~ dg• v O 14-4 a O • a � y 0 � 0 U O a• �� �^ • od3 : ; � ;a CfC te • O 6 C.) OD O • w • o ,� co 3 U o o c' -d -d ca O 7cn . =,. ir _-9c90 - o" co w 61 8 E o. x O o o 0./ '"' ° - , cl 0 o ; c o; ° c o > f > •b o PL. 0 � o ) • C, a, c,: C � o 4, • ° H co �., °? o 0 cd ° o 4 ) ▪ o o c.) o o �0 0 ' � • ., O 'LCII �'' �, o Gov '4g .'..1. ��, ,.+ 0 O c0 = - • -• al H ▪ • bo H v V 75 b a" .5 o H P Use Wells? 0 A r�i file: / /A:\index.html MPCA - Ground Water Mapping and Assessment Program (GWMAP) Why Is GWMAP Ground Water Information Important? •-. p U .+ o it � ' a� caS 0 0- cc 0 3 U 0 — b 0 •.� �(7 O r A 8 p� . bA ° 's ~ v� oQ' $-,D 0 0.o a; " •• '" c 0 3 H U U - i r b O o 3 Q. 0 cd t 0 41 TS c. U O b0 . a) cd s 0 U • i to 0 r. - + b0 '� ) o E, ; 3 N a 0 a) CI. czt 51 r t 3 t'1,13 0 ;-4 C What Is All The Concern About Ground Water Contamination? W i $." c E at Ucl E.' U ct 0 ' -, - a .E M N U ~ 'd O C% c� - O~ a) O '0 0 o b0 Q �' 0 •1 a) vi C b a) -0 0 0 0 c p. a) 0 - °a) oa, - bA 0 ' N 'b o N O coC C CL..E.; O O 'd cal O O i. O l) tIO 014 I) Ct 0 c • potable ground water. U O .—r ,U N U U 7� N UIfiPa) I-4 C4 • "∎ 3 a, � �., 00'O -woo CtI O 9 O a) ) ▪ O U - U Q 0 el n CI s-, CI O • 'C . 00 0 ,., c, U O N O cn y O ..r v �cn cal cd UU O ) O '. g Q U ,, c4 o. 'C3 2 ~ ,.0 I � O a) O "O N g cn O .t.4,_, ,� O C1, .. j t~ 2 N ccj sz U .11 CA A " U c� c� ›, O 01, a) a) O cn o U 'A �' O ''''' ,4—icc4 : O • O $., ^C a) " a) cz: = ▪ cn R, E 69 a) bA d c N 4� ,, U O cat al a�"i �,�, �4-, o f >= r 5 V) 4,4 4) o cti U � U 0 ]■ a) , O d .b 0 N •.r U cz (I) bt)• 'G ..0 a U > • •O ) O 0 e.+ O CS' cn O For Whom Does GWMAP Provide Services? 5,5 • ° U ti 3 a, o s. s.., 0 C U O CLI • O� b • ; j Q" O a) bA mss.., N O y ›, U 5 j a) ¢, .- 4) -' O 'B o 2 cat a) 3 au') a) .' O O O 5 -o o Q. 0 a) c t4 • O 4. sU, s., ›, - .Q, 0 . d 0 i° 4� 5 • .0 .5 g }; d C3 ai U < N Q 3 bA U bA cz s.. • • • • • bbA j o O o 00 I-- § Ma CO I. \ CO « d \ o \o o § § 6 887 r= azz #� /\ \3\ 7 \ Q �k d// §CI, ° @) y / \2) -, 0 4 2 / / \ \ -..- 2 /« /\ \± 4 m ®/ / § -©©]\\ CO / j C \ cc; ( = \\ CO ;s, \ CO - , t ° CO c/a\ & Cl) c Q vo # § _ = 2 = W CO CO l) / \ CO \ \ \ \ ©a \ / §kc en 8 0^ g rd \d am 2/ pa ON V) _ § 0 9 Ors' N tin OO bA 0 4.4 '10 U cd A. 7 '~ •_ N) O • DU = p p _ 'Ci O c v 0 O •..I 4 �, b ' A +-+ C" cat 0 U ., v, -0 O ''' U 0 0 cs s., N c� 4-4 3 fihelu 0 a cu O d w U V b ccd ¢, ~ O .. s., 0 Uci, bq U , ' ~ U U d O ^ � 0 to U 0 U 'd ..clUc ,� o,oUo 10,z) 00� p;0 0 C24 46 v 3 aawI■ 0U'00UUrAo (7ww Cv)v) �0 co 7v) d�o°0rn v- a I 0) o� < 0 0 I 0 0 file: / /A: \gw- septic.html N O O OC N *In Contractors Associ e Treatmen Minnesota On -site Sewa • Contact Information 0 N M 00 VD N 0■ N N O\ cTs 0 ^.1 N M 00 N 01 VD 00 01 N i W 0 W • • a> 00 ON 0 M n N y z g� z 0 U N 00 5 a> 0 0 0 a ti • ler • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Outcomes Division Ground Water Monitoring & Assessment Program Phosphorus in Minnesota§ Ground Water What is phosphorus? Phosphorus is a chemical commonly found in soil, rocks and plants. It is an essential nutrient for plant growth. Consequently, phosphorus is an important fertilizer in agricultural production, and it is used widely in urban settings. Phosphorus is an important contaminant of surface water, since even low concentrations can lead to algal blooms, which diminish the recreational value of lakes and rivers. Phosphorus, particularly inorganic forms, is relatively immobile in soil. What are sources of phosphorus in ground water? Concentrations of phosphorus in rocks may be as much as 1,000 mg/kg (parts per million). Considerable amounts of phosphorus are tied up in vegetation. Humans have dramatically altered the phosphorus cycle. Phosphorus is an important fertilizer, but it is also present in human and animal wastes, insludges and in detergents. Therefore, concentrations in many soils are therefore likely to be considerably higher than under native conditions. May 1999 Phosphorus is immobile, however, and it will not reach ground water in appreciable quantities except under certain conditions. These include low soil attenuation capacity (for example, soil with low concentrations of iron, aluminum and manganese) or preferential transport of phosphorus - containing wastes through the soil to ground water. An example of this preferential transport is a septic system completed below the depth of the seasonal high water table. What is considered a safe level of phosphorus in ground water? There are no drinking water standards for phosphorus. The primary concern with phosphorus is discharge to surface waters. Concentrations of total phosphorus exceeding 100 pg/L (parts per billion) may represent a threat to surface water. Although 347 samples taken in Minnesota exceeded 100 pg/L, only 18 exceeded 500 pg/L. How is phosphorus distributed in Minnesota ground water? The overall median concentration of total phosphorus was 70 pg/L in wells sampled from the Ground Water Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd. N., Saint Paul, MN 55155 -4194 (651) 296 -6300, toll -free (800) 657 -3864, TTY (651) 282 -5332 or (800) 657 -3864 This material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. Printed on recycled naner cnntaininn at least 90 nerrent fillers from naner recvrled by consumers. it.,Z$ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Outcomes Division Ground Water Monitoring & Assessment Program Monitoring and Assessment Program (GWMAP) statewide baseline network of 954 wells. Inorganic phosphorus (phosphates) accounted for about 80 percent of the total phosphorus and organic phosphorus about 20 percent of the total phosphorus and organic phosphorus about 20 percent, assuming that 0.05 percent of organic matter is phosphorus. There was considerable variability between aquifers. The highest median concentrations occurred in the Cedar Valley (median = 203 pg/L), Cretaceous (140 pg/L) and buried Quaternary (124 pg/L) aquifers. Lowest concentrations occurred in the Jordan (25 pg/L), Prairie du Chien (34 pg/L) and Precambrian (35 µg/L) aquifers. The median concentration in the surficial Quaternary aquifer was 561.1g/L. Although the distribution of phosphorus is somewhat complicated, concentrations are highest in aquifers with large natural inputs. Concentrations increase as residence time increases, probably because of increased association with iron and manganese. Which aquifers are most sensitive to contamination with phosphorus? Contamination is difficult to define for phosphorus, since surface water is the primary concern. Aquifers that are most likely to impact surface water do not appear to be sensitive to contamination with phosphorus. Nevertheless, shallow ground water is likely to show some impacts from human activity. The baseline study does not provide good information for assessing phosphorus inputs to shallow ground water. Why is it important to measure phosphorus concentrations in ground water? Phosphorus should be sampled in aquifer systems that discharge to surface water and in which there are potentially large anthropogenic inputs. Along with sampling for phosphorus, sampling includes an assessment of the attenuation properties of the aquifer. This includes differentiation of phosphorus species, pH and concentrations of iron, manganese and aluminum. May 1999 What are some management strategies for reducing risks from phosphorus? Despite the large anthropogenic inputs to soil, phosphorus will not be a contaminant of concern in most aquifers because of limited mobility. Excessive use of fertilizer and poor waste management, particularly on sandy soils with low organic matter content, are most likely to lead to high phosphorus concentrations in shallow ground water. Implementation of best management practices for agriculture and disposal of human and animal wastes represent the best mechanisms for limiting phosphorus inputs to ground and surface waters. Additional information, including reports and distribution maps, can be found the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Internet site at http://www.pea.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwm ap /index.html. Phosphorus in Minnesotat Ground Water Page 2 • v� Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Outcomes Division GroundWater Monitoring& Assessment Program Vegetativebuffers forprotectingandimproving groundwaterquality What isavegetativebuffer? Vegetativebuffersareareasofvegetation thatprovideatransitionbetweendifferent landuses .Vegetativebuffersaremost commonlyassociatedwithriparianzones, whicharetransitionareasbetweenuplands andlakes ,riversorwetlands.Riparian forests (thoselocatedalongstreams) havea highcapacitytopreventthemovementof nitrateandothernutrientsinsurfacerunoff andgroundwaterflowfromuplandareas. Riparianzonesarealsowellsuitedas farmland ,aslivestockgrazingareas,for timberproductionorforcommercialand residentialdevelopment .Ifnotproperly managed ,theseusesdiminishthevalueof vegetativebuffersforprotectingwater quality. February2000 Howdovegetativebuffersprotect groundwaterquality? Theimpactsofvegetativebuffersupon groundwaterarenotalwaysobvious. Vegetationtakesupnutrientsfromshallow groundwaterandproducesconditionsthat arefavorableforthebreakdownof chemicals ,suchasnitrateandherbicides. Theamountofwaterinfiltratingthroughthe soilandintothegroundwaterisoften higherinpermanentlyvegetatedareasthan inagriculturalareas ,andthisextrawater maydilutechemicalconcentrations. Vegetativebuffersalsoreducerunofffrom uplandareas.Asthisrunoffwater infiltratesthesoil ,nutrientsandother chemicalsareadsorbed ,degradedorutilized byvegetation. —► Thickarrowsshowflowofwater Row crop agriculture Spring Grass buffer Forested buffer Nitratemovementtosoil andgroundwater D enitrification • Plantuptake NOTE: Verticalscalegreatlyexaggerated .Arrowsdonotimplyratesofflow. MinnesotaPollutionControlAgency, 520LafayetteRd .N.,SaintPaul,MN551554194 (651 ) 2966300 ,tollfree(800)6573864,TTY(651) 2825332or(800)6573864 Thismaterialcanbemadeavailableinalternativeformatsforpeoplewithdisabilities. Printedonrecycledpapercontainingatleast2Opercentfibersfrompaperrecycledbyconsumers. cznMinnesota Pollution Control Agency EnvironmentalOutcomesDivision GroundWaterMonitoring &AssessmentProgram Inabufferarea, groundwaterpassesthroughorunderthe vegetatedarea.Watermustinteractwiththevegetationto beimpactedbyit. Consequently ,vegetatedbufferswill havetheirgreatestimpactinareaswheregroundwateris closetothesurface .Inthediagramonthefirstpageof thisfactsheet, nitratesinfiltratethroughsoilinthe agriculturaluplandarea .Whenthiswateremergesasa springalonganimpermeablezoneorinshallowground water, grassesandtreestakeupsomeofthenitrate. Nitrateisalsobrokendownintheforestedareathrougha processcalled "denitrification." Nitrateistypicallythechemicalofconcerninground water. Riparianforestsretainupto99percentofnitrate, comparedtoabout85percentinazonevegetatedwith grass. Vegetationremovesaboutonethirdofthenitratein shallowgroundwater .Thenitrogentakenupbyplantsis storedintheirtissues .Thisoccursonlyduringthe growingseason. Themostimportantmechanismofnitrateremovalis denitrification. Microorganisms ,suchasbacteria,utilize nitrateduringfoodproduction .Thebacteriatransformthe nitratetonitrogengas ,whichisthenreleasedtothe atmosphere. Microorganismsalsoneedorganicmatter duringthisprocess ,andvegetationisthesourceofthis organicmatter. Organicmatterisreleasedwhenleaves andotherplantpartsdieandreachthesoilsurface .These plantpartsarebrokendownandinfiltratethroughthesoil, intothegroundwater ,wheretheyareusedby microorganisms. Consequently, denitrificationratesare highestandplantshavetheirgreatestimpactinsoilandin shallowgroundwaterthatisinterceptedbyplantroots. Theeffectofdilutiononreducingnitrateconcentrationsin groundwaterissmallcomparedtoplantuptakeand denitrification.Otherchemicals ,suchasherbicidesand tracemetals, maybeaffectedinwayssimilartonitrate. Thefollowingfactorsenhanceremovalofnitrateorother chemicalsinavegetatedbufferzone: • moderatelypermeablesoilsthatallowinfiltrationbut notexcessivelyrapidflow; • groundwaterwithinito3meters (3tolOfeet)ofthe landsurface ,thusallowingforplantuptakeand removalinbothsoilandgroundwater; • uniformflowingroundwater ,suchasoccursinsand andgravelorsandstoneaquifers; February2000� • groundwaterwithhighconcentrationsofreduced sulfur, whichcanbeusedinsteadoforganicmatter duringdenitrification; • increasedplantproduction;and • increasedwidthofthebufferzone ,whichallowsa greaterareafromwhichchemicalscanberemoved. Whataresomeguidelinesforestablishing vegetativebuffers? • Vegetativebuffersshouldbeusedinconjunctionwith landmanagementsystemsthatincludenutrient managementandsedimentanderosioncontrol. • Buffersshouldbe 18.3meters (60feet) ormorewide andcontaintreesandshrubs. • Bottomlandhardwoods ,suchascottonwood,silver maple,willowandgreenash ,aretolerantofwaterand removelargequantitiesofnutrients .Shrubs,suchas dogwoods,ninebark ,chokecherryandviburnum, provideadditionalcoverbeneaththetreecanopyand areeffectiveinremovingnutrientsfromwetzones. Increasingthevarietyoftreesandshrubsprovides greaterdiversityinnutrientuptakeandenhances uptakeoverlongperiods .Someplantspeciesmaybe sensitivetoherbicidespresentingroundwater. • Anadditionalzonetoenhanceinfiltrationofwater mayincludegrasses .Thisgrassystripshouldbeat least6.1 meters (20feet) wide. Recommendedspecies includeswitchgrassorothernativegrasses. • Forestsaresomewhatmoreeffectiveatremoving nutrientsfromshallowgroundwater. • Onpermeablesoils ,utilizeatreedensityofabout35 percentofthetotalvegetativeareatoprovidethemost effectiveremovalofnitrate. • References ThefollowingWebsitesaregoodstartingpointsfor gatheringmoreinformationonriparianbuffersandwater quality. Thesecondsiteprovidesalistofpublications. http : / /ink.yahoo.com/bin /query ?p = riparian +buffer +nitrate +groun d +water &hc= 0 &hs =0 http: / /www.serc.si.edu/SERC web html/pub ripzone.html http : / /affiliate.directhit.com/fcgi bin/DirectHitWeh.fcg? alias = websrch &fmt= html &qry= Riparian. &meta= rs &persrch =iIj Vegetativebuffersforprotectingandim provinggroundwaterquality Page2 •Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Outcomes Division Ground Water Monitoring & Assessment Program Estimating Ground Water Sensitivity to Nitrate Contamination Water resource managers often view ground water pollution sensitivity maps as an important tool for ground water protection. Methods for mapping sensitivity consider factors such as soil permeability, aquifer conductivity, depth to water, and recharge. Sensitivity ratings are based on the time it takes for water to travel from a point of origin (for example, a septic system or a farm field) to the water table or an aquifer. Sensitivity methods based strictly on time of travel provide little information about the potential fate of contaminants in ground water. For example, nitrate can be transformed in ground water through a process called "denitrification." Denitrification reduces potential negative effects of nitrate on drinking water or surface water receptors. The Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (GWMAP) of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has collected data that suggest denitrification is an important process in ground water. Denitrification occurs within well- defined conditions in ground water. Assessing these conditions is an important tool for water managers, and is more useful in aquifer management than simple estimates of hydrologic sensitivity. `Geochemical sensitivity" is the term we June 1999 use to describe sensitivity of ground water to nitrate contamination. Under what conditions is an aquifer sensitive to nitrate contamination? In Minnesota, surficial aquifers are recharged annually. This means the time it takes water to move from a point of origin to the water table is less than one year. By traditional mapping techniques, these surficial aquifers are considered sensitive to nitrate contamination. Resource managers, in turn, may use these sensitivity estimates for water planning, even though deeper portions of these aquifers may not be sensitive because nitrate will be denitrified. Recharge and infiltration certainly affect the fate of nitrate in the environment, but we emphasize the importance of characterizing the aquifer chemistry to predict the fate of nitrate. These concepts are explained in greater detail in a report (MPCA, 1998a). The following table can be used as a rough guide to identify ground water that is sensitive to nitrate contamination. When using this table, all three criteria must apply for a ground water sample to be classified as sensitive or not sensitive. This is important, because we have observed mixed results for many samples. Dissolved oxygen and oxidation - reduction potential Characteristic Sensitive Not sensitive Filtered iron concentration Less than 0.1 part per million More than 1 part per million Eh More than 250 millivolts Less than 225 millivolts Dissolved oxygen More than 1 part per million Less than 1 part per million Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd. N., Saint Paul, MN 55155 -4194 (651) 296 -6300, toll -free (800) 657 -3864, TTY (651) 282 -5332 or (800) 657 -3864 This material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. Printed on rervnled naner nnntaininn at least 20 nement fihers from nanar recvc:Ied by consumers. 42) Minnesota Paitutlon Control Age= r Environmental Outcomes Division Ground Water Monitoring & Assessment Program (ORP) are measured in the field. Iron samples are filtered in the field using a 0.45- micron filter and sent to a lab for analysis. A value of 0.7 part per million for total (unfiltered) iron may be used in place of filtered iron. The criteria shown in the table can be modified if technical staff have a sufficient basis for modifying the values. How does the geochemical sensitivity concept work? We advocate taking ground water samples vertically within the aquifer of concern. For example, consider the figure below. The data for it come from our St. Cloud land use study (MPCA, 1998b, 1999). In the figure, there are three wells sampled at different depths and data for each well are included. The data indicate that the upper portion of the aquifer is sensitive to nitrate contamination but the lower portion is not. A transition zone, where nitrate is denitrified, occurs between the upper and lower zones. 0 • 15 0 5 50 • Sensitive Wells Land surface Not sensitive Well 1 2 3 Oxygen (ppm) 6.3 4.6 1.7 Eh (mV) 308 300 287 Iron (PPm) 0.03 0.07 0.30 3 Nitrate (PPm) 5.60 0.50 0.05 How does this affect aquifer management? In the example above, thesurficial sand and gravel aquifer is mapped as being sensitive to contamination (DNR, 1999). Age dating indicates that water throughout the aquifer is less than 50 years old. Nitrate, however, is denitrified between five and 15 feet. Some important recommendations can be made based on these results: 1. Different land uses are compatible (for example, irrigated agriculture and residential development). 1 The ORP measurement is not the same asEh. ORP measurements must be corrected for temperature and for the particular probe being used. Call the manufacturer of the probe to obtain the correction factor. June199Io 2. Drinking water wells should be completed at depths of more than 30 feet below the top of the aquifer, preferably deeper. 3. Large water supply wells, such as those used for irrigation and municipal supply, should draw from deeper, confined aquifers to preventdrawdown of the surficial system. Drawdown in the surficial system would pull nitrate -rich water deeper into the aquifer, contaminating much of the aquifer. How does one map geochemical sensitivity for nitrate? • Sample several wells at various depths in the aquifer of concern; • measure dissolved oxygen and ORP in the field; • collect nitrate and filtered iron samples for laboratory analysis; • develop a three - dimensional sensitivity map using the .• develop appropriate aquifer management strategies. guidelines stated above; and For more information For more information, contact Mike Trojan at (651) 297- 5219 (e -mail: mike.trojan@pca.state.mn.us). Our Web address is http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/in dex.html. References Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Geologic Atlas — Stearns County, Minnesota. County Atlas Series. Atlas C -10, Part B. 3 plates. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1998a. Nitrate in Minnesota Ground Water —A GWMAP Perspective. 57 pp. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1998b. Water Quality in the Upper Fifteen Feet of a Shallow Sand Aquifer. 38 pp. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1999. Effects of Land Use on Ground Water Quality —St. Cloud Area, Minnesota. 1998 Results. 46 pp. Estimating Ground Water Sensitivity to Nitrate Contamination Page 2 W Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota's Principal Aquifers Ground Water /May 1998 In March 1998, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) released a report, "Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota's Principal Aquifers," that provides data about the quality of the state's ground water resources. This fact sheet summarizes the study and provides contacts for more information. What is the baseline study? The baseline study is an assessment of ground water quality in Minnesota's principal aquifers. The objectives of the study were to determine background water quality of the state's principal aquifers and identify factors that affect ground water quality. How was the study conducted? Samples were collected from domestic wells using a statewide grid, with a distance of 11 miles between each grid node. Each aquifer identified at a grid node was sampled. Sampling included 47 inorganic chemicals and five field parameters, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and some sampling for tritium (a radioactive isotope) and pesticides. A total of 954 wells were sampled statewide. What information did the study generate? Summary statistics were generated for each chemical in Minnesota's principal aquifers. This includes mean, median, maximum, minimum, 95th percentile, and 95th percent confidence limit concentrations. For aquifers with more than 15 samples, these data serve as background concentrations. Factors affecting water quality were identified for each chemical and aquifer. Some of the more important conclusions are listed below. • Water quality in glacial drift aquifers was generally good but varied widely, with arsenic, manganese, iron, and nitrate concentrations locally being at high concentrations. • Water quality in Cambrian and Ordovician aquifers of southeast Minnesota was good, except in those areas where the aquifers appeared to be poorly protected by overlying glacial deposits. • Water quality in the Cretaceous and Sioux Quartzite aquifers generally was poor due to high concentrations of sulfates, boron, dissolved solids (including hardness), and, in some cases, nitrate and manganese. • Water quality in Precambrian aquifers depends on the type of soil or bedrock and ranged from poor in North Shore Volcanics (high boron, manganese, and beryllium concentrations) to good in crystalline bedrock aquifers. Concentrations of most chemicals were higher in the western part of the state. This reflects increased time that the water has been in the ground, decreased recharge, and differences in parent material toward the west. Similar but less significant relationships were observed in the southern part of the state. Nitrate, iron, manganese, arsenic, and boron were among the chemicals most strongly correlated with oxidation - reduction potential (redox) conditions in Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194 (612) 296 -6300, toll -free (800) 657 -3864, TDD (612) 282 -5332 This material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities Printed on recycled paper containing 100 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers ef.:2) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ground water. Nitrate concentrations were greatest in oxygen -rich, high redox waters, while iron, manganese, arsenic, and boron all increased as redox potential decreased. Well diameter significantly affected water quality. The effect of well diameter was related to changes in redox conditions near large- diameter compared to small- diameter wells. Large - diameter wells had oxygen - rich, high redox water, which leads to elevated concentrations of nitrate and lower concentrations of iron and manganese compared to smaller- diameter wells. Large - diameter wells do not represent a major threat to an aquifer's water quality, despite these findings. Risk to ground water users was low for most aquifers and chemicals. The percentage of samples exceeding health -based drinking criteria was 8.7, 4.1, 3.3, and 2.3 for boron, manganese (using a standard of 1000 ug/L), nitrate, and beryllium, respectively. The percentage of samples exceeding their Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) was 67.9, 6.5, and 3.7 for iron, aluminum, and sulfate, respectively. VOCs were detected in 11 percent of the wells, but there were only four exceedances of health -based drinking water criteria. The most common VOCs were chloroform (47 detections), toluene (26), xylene and benzene (13 each), di -, tri-, and tetrachoroethene (3, 5, and 4, respectively), and various chlorofluorocarbons (10). Atrazine was detected in two wells at concentrations below the drinking water standard. Analysis of individual parameters included an assessment of natural and anthropogenic sources for each chemical, the fate of chemicals in soil and ground water, factors affecting the observed distribution of chemicals in groundwater, and geochemical controls on distribution of chemicals in ground water. Who can use information from this study? The report is technical, but water planners can use the baseline information to better understand factors that may influence ground water quality. The `Summary Statistics' and the `Factors Affecting Ground Water Quality' sectior� of the report should help local water planners put what they already know about the local system into a larger context and determine if their area falls within expected ranges for parameters of concern. This document also contains information that should improve planners' understanding of the vulnerability and condition of their aquifer. This includes discussions of what parameters are of concern, which of those are naturally occurring, and which can be affected by human activity. This information can also be used to improve individual monitoring plans to get meaningful local information. Technical staff can use the baseline data to assess background conditions for aquifers and obtain information that may help make site decisions. The baseline document includes geochemical information that may help hydrogeologists to understand the conditions in certain aquifers. Another application is using the information to make risk -based decisions. Example scenarios of how this might be helpful are included in the full report in the summary and examples sections. Managers can use the baseline data to better understand ground water quality issues. It also will help managers toll understand potential risks to receptors and know what areas would benefit from ground water protection programs. The statistical summaries define background values for each aquifer, providing a context for Page 2 Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota's Principal Aquifers Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (GWMAP), June 1998 particularly valuable data for managers at sites that are otentially contaminated. Thus, higher or lower values than background can be investigated and assessed. Also, chemicals with the greatest risk of exceeding the various drinking water criteria have been identified for the principal aquifers. This information will help managers make informed decisions about risk, aquifer use, and resource protection. What doesn't the study tell us? For aquifers in which less than about 15 wells were sampled, the summary data should not be used as background information unless additional data from other sources exist for the aquifer of concern. Most sampled wells were completed in the middle and lower portions of aquifers. The data therefore do not provide a good picture of water quality in the upper portions of these aquifers. This will be of most concern for unconfined aquifers which receive direct recharge, such as unprotected areas of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers, fractured bedrock aquifers near the land surface, and surficial drift aquifers. GWMAP is conducting an increasing amount of monitoring in shallow systems to fill in these data gaps. Ilkamples were not filtered. The samples provide a good indication of what is being consumed by humans, but geochemical interpretations are difficult. The greatest concern is with chemicals which were highly correlated with suspended solids, such as iron and manganese. Seasonal and spatial effects are unknown. Seasonal effects on water quality should be small, since most samples were from deeper portions of the aquifers. Assessing spatial patterns would require a denser sampling network and knowledge of geologic materials. Spatial effects are best studied in small geographic areas for naturally- occurring chemicals which pose a potential water quality concern. What is the future of the baseline study? iecause background water vality should not change over time, there is no need to continue the baseline program at the same level. However, the following components of a statewide baseline program should be established. Additional samples should be collected from the Sioux Quartzite, Cedar Valley, Mt. Simon, Hinckley, St. Lawrence, and Franconia aquifers. The final sample size for these aquifers should be approximately 20. These samples do not need to be collected within GWMAP grids. Upon completion of the additional sampling, the data should be reanalyzed and new summary statistics generated. A statewide baseline database should be established and maintained in a central location. Some of the key features of this database are listed below. • Minimum quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) criteria need to be established for data entered into the database. • Additional fields should be created for the data, including land use. • Data from non -GWMAP past and future studies should be entered. Other likely data sources include US Geological Survey investigations, Minnesota Geological Survey and Department of Natural Resources studies including county atlases and regional assessments, and regional data. • Data from regulated sites should be entered when the data are considered to represent background (i.e. upgradient wells) water quality. 9 8 7 6 c 5 W V 0 4 3 2 0 Percent exceeding health -based drinking water standards boron manganese nitrate berillium Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota's Principal Aquifers Page 3 Coni Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v.� Percent exceeding secondary drinking water standards • Data should be reanalyzed at approximately 10 -year intervals. What is the difference between ambient and baseline data? Baseline provides a snapshot of water quality at a particular point in time. It is used as a point of reference and can therefore be considered to represent a background condition. This concept works well for naturally- occurring chemicals, because concentrations of these chemicals in ground water should change slowly, if at all. For aquifers affected by human activity, a different approach is needed because water quality may change in response to human activity. An ambient program also provides a snapshot of water quality at a particular point in time, but when measured over several different times, trends in water quality can be assessed. An ambient program therefore measures several "baselines" to determine if they are equal. If they are not, then ground water quality is changing. Another difference between baseline and ambient is that only chemicals which may be expected to change in response to human activity are sampled in an ambient design. Examples include nitrate and VOCs. If water quality is changing, the following questions need to be answered. • Is water quality getting better or worse? • What is the lateral and vertical extent of change within the aquifer? • What will the water quality be when change ends? • What factors are contributing to change? • What human activities can be implemented to maintain or improve water quality at a sustainable level for human consumption? The following aquifers are potentially sensitive to huma. activity. • Surficial drift aquifers. • Bedrock aquifers with thin cover of glacial materials. • Karst bedrock. • Fractured bedrock near the land surface. • Deeper aquifers which are extensively pumped, thus inducing flow of ground water from more sensitive aquifers. Ambient monitoring networks should be established in areas mapped as being hydrologically sensitive. The principal components of such networks are listed below. • Wells should be completed at the water table and at receptor points. The shallow wells are designed to identify impacts in the most sensitive portions of the aquifer; the receptor wells identify the risk to humans. • Monitoring points should be located so that spatial analysis of the data can be conducted. Separation distances between wells will vary with the sampling location and may require some preliminary sampling from temporary and existing wells. • Conduct quarterly sampling for at least four years or until seasonal variations can be quantified. Samplir may then be reduced to once or twice a year. • Sample parameters include the chemicals of concern for the aquifer being sampled and field parameters. Most monitoring programs will also include sampling for major cations and anions and the redox parameters (field Eh and dissolved oxygen, reduced iron and manganese, total and dissolved organic carbon, sulfate, and nitrate). • Field sampling, laboratory QA/QC, data storage, and data analysis procedures must be documented • Completion of an annual report is required. Where can 1 get more information or data? Additional reports, information, and presentations will be prepared during the ensuing months to reach all potential audiences.For further information, contact Tom Clark (project coordinator, 612 - 296 -8580) or Mike Trojan (technical analyst, 612 - 297 - 5219). GWMAP reports and data can be mailed electronically or found on the MPCA web site at <http: / /www.pca.state.mn.us >. Page 4 Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota's Principal Aquifers • Minnesota Baseline Water Quality of Pollution Control Agency Environmental Outcomes Division Ground Water Monitoring & Assessment Minnesota's Principal Aquifers: Region 6, Twin Cities Metro Area What was the baseline study? Between 1992 and 1996, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) Ground Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (GWMAP) sampled 954 primarily domestic wells across Minnesota. The goal of this study, called the baseline study, was to determine ambient water quality in Minnesota's principal aquifers. What parameters were sampled? Each well was sampled for 48 inorganic chemicals such as nitrate, chloride, arsenic and metals; 68 volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as benzene; other parameters, such as pH and temperature; total dissolved solids and total organic carbon. In addition selected wells were tested for tritium, an indicator of water less than 50 years old. What is Region 6? The MPCA has divided Minnesota into six regions. Region 6 encompasses the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and includes the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. The regional office is in St. Paul. How many wells were sampled and in which aquifers? In 1993, 1994 and 1996, 93 wells were sampled in Region 6. Of these 93 GWMAP, March 1999 samples, 25 were from wells completed in buried confined sand and gravel aquifers, 10 were from wells completed in surficial sand and gravel aquifers, one was from a well completed in a Precambrian aquifer, and 57 were from wells completed in Paleozoic bedrock aquifers. What is the quality of ground water in Region 6? Water quality varied among the major aquifers of Region 6. The Franconia aquifer had high concentrations of many chemicals compared to other aquifers in the region, particularly for the major ions. The Prairie du Chien aquifer is sensitive to human activity, as evidenced by elevated nitrate and chloride concentrations. The Jordan aquifer has good - quality water, with low concentrations of dissolved solids compared to other aquifers. Water quality in the St. Peter aquifer varied widely, with half the samples showing impacts from human activity. The surficial drift aquifers showed impacts from humans, with concentrations of chloride, sodium and some trace metals being high compared to other aquifers. The number of exceedances of drinking water criteria are shown in the table on the back of this fact sheet. There were few exceedances of drinking criteria, but this may be related partly to sampling Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd. N., Saint Paul, MN 55155 -4194 (651) 296 -6300, toll -free (800) 657 -3864, TDD (651) 282 -5332 or (800) 657 -3864 This material can be made available in altemative formats for people with disabilities. PrintMri nn ranvr.Iarl nanar rnntaininn at Iaact 20 narr:Ant fihar¢ from nanAr ranvrlarl by norm Imarr GS Minnesota Pollution Control AftestY Environmental Outcomes Division Ground Water Monitoring & Assessment GWMAP, March 1999. excee anc lal sand an Manganese (Mn) 0 1 1 1 Nitrate (NO3) 0 1 1 0 Selenium (Se) 0 0 0 2 bias, since few samples were collected from sensitive aquifers in the older, more industrialized portions of the Twin Cities. VOCs were found in four (4.3 percent) of the wells. In each of these four wells, more than one VOC was detected. The primary VOCs were compounds commonly associated with fuel oils, gasoline, and industrial or household solvents. All VOC concentrations were below drinking water criteria. What are the primary research needs in Region 6? The primary research needs for Region 6 include: 1. determining the overall distribution ofVOCs in the major aquifers of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area; 2. identifying major plumes containing chlorinated solvents; 3. determining relationships between land use and ground water quality, including evaluation of long -term changes in ground water quality in the major aquifers of the Twin Cities; and 4. determining the relationship between geology, particularly mineralogy, and water quality of the bedrock aquifers. What are the primary monitoring needs for Region 6? The primary monitoring needs for Region 6 include: 1. expanding databases for the Paleozoic and water table aquifers by approximately 10 wells each; 2. incorporating data from regulated sites into the regional baseline data; 3. employing models to assist in tracking plumes, particularly for chlorinated solvents; 4. conducting ambient monitoring in aquifers impacted by humans, particularly forVOCs; 5. establishing agency -wide sampling, data - management and data - analysis protocol by an interagency group consisting of staff from all programs dealing with ground water cleanup and monitoring; and 6. collecting monitoring information on the distribution of pesticides and metabolites. What is the role of GWMAP in addressing these research and monitoring needs? GWMAP discontinued baseline sampling in 1997. We feel the emerging ground water issues are identifying aquifer and regional water quality as impacted by human activity, assessing the effectiveness of environmental policies and programs, and establishing long -term monitoring networks to determine whether water quality is changing in response to human activity. We will strive to work with other ground water programs that deal directly with ground water problems and effectiveness monitoring, and attempt to secure funding for establishing long -term monitoring networks. Baseline Water Quality of Minnesota's Principal Aquifers: Region 6, Twin Cities Metro Area • AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: May 31, 2000 TOPIC: Apollo Business Center /Grading Permit Request BACKGROUND: Apollo Business District is located on Apollo Drive. The grading area consideration is just south and west of the Correctional Facility. Please see map. Attached is a letter from John Johnson, Engineering Consultant for G.M. Development. The letter describes the project request. I have enclosed some geographic information photos depicting the site. G.M. Development would like to stockpile aggregate base material in the an existing borrow pit on the. NE corner, fill an existing pond and drainage swail, build a new pond and swail (includes a length of pipe), raise some surface elevations on the south side of the project, and build a berm on the East side. There are scattered areas of emerging native plants throughout the Apollo Drive Area. These areas should be located on the map to determine if proposed changes to topography could be avoided. This area is zoned commercial /industrial and there are going to be obvious structures, and features planned in the future. The Developer has a need to raise elevations. There may be an opportunity to design around remnant and emerging prairie areas. The best opportunity for preservation and restoration may be in the natural waterway areas from the wetland on the NE, around to the new pond to the East, South to where the piping starts, and around to the south of Apollo Drive new swail area. I think it is a good idea to direct the water from the NE to the SouthWest pond. Water in this area wants to go to the east and Reshanau Lake. The pond to the SW (pond 2) is isolated. The proposed aggregate stockpile area has an existing swail and drainage coming out from the borrow area and going to the South. It appears the proposed elevation changes to the south of this area would direct surface water to Pond 1. In reference to truck movement through the site for stockpiles, it would be beneficial to designate an access route to avoid anymore soil compaction in areas that may be supporting native prairie and salvageable. • The berm is suggested to screen the project. The berm also happens to be positioned in an emerging bio- diverse prairie area. I would rater suggest a reestablished woodland /prairie restoration site for this area. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend that the protection measures suggested is further investigated. Remove berm and replace with restoration site. Locate areas that are supporting emerging prairies. If possible set up zone protection areas for these areas. Further definition of drainage on the North needs to be determined. Replant disturbed areas with Native plant mix. 2. Refer back to staff for further review. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1, and any other recommendations from the Environmental Board. J C JOHNSON CONSULTANTS, INC. 8618 Maryland Ave. N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 May 22, 2000 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Mayor and Council Members; Phone: (763) 391 -0243 Fax: (763) 391 -0245 Re: Grading permit for Apollo Business Center G.M. Development is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a grading permit for filling and construction of drainage improvements on two parcels, one on each side of Apollo Drive. This grading permit will include the construction and relocation of the north -south drainage swale, the extension of the culvert under Apollo Drive, a new sediment and rate control pond, a rate control outlet across old 74th Street, filling of old borrow pits, a 4 to 6 foot berm along the west edge of the site to screen the residential area to the west and construction of Apollo Court. The work will be phased and will last thru the 2001 construction season. Every prospective buyer todate has indicated a concern that the sites need fill in order for them to build on the properties. This is due to the centerline grade of Apollo Drive being several feet above the existing ground level and is compounded further by the superelevation of the roadway thru the curve on the north side of Apollo Drive. It is estimated that 80,000 to 100,000 cubic yards of import fill may be required to complete the development of these sites. The grading plan has been designed CO avoid excess handling of material and to offer locations for various kinds of import fill material that may become available as the construction season progresses. Mr Uhde has concluded a grading CUP needs to be approved in order to insure quality till placement and construction of the required drainage facilities. Existing topsoil and vegetation will be stripped and stockpiled for respreading after placement of fill material. I appreciate your prompt attention and processing of the Conditional Use Permit request. If you need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely yours, cc: Gary Uhde LIf�LAAf`9T/1A nr•Ln AA /77 /CA • • • ApoIIo Business Dist Ma 1 2000 „--- ri ...i..13... ',� Pond 3 :.� • Pro..- _ New Pond ,1' ' Proposed Fill . a. Proposed Aggregate Base 1 E+ ,..ice Stockpile Area fit'.,.: : ‘i.. kE E• � Proposed Pipe e 111111 e,...;.•:v OS } .(Y Pro • osed New Drainage .. itfliliii. y I k } • J i - - -- j •kf. \ ■ �.�'♦ �k .:!_`'''mss Pond 2 i:• .,; - i 'AdA ...:-. .€44..-....; 4 .1 .4”- 0 4°71' 2 ! , , .. `ter . , .........k . co d co O 0 O M O O O. O. s .c iG to E m E m m O O N O O • as ss w w co IA m m E E W m 1 • • • ■ 6 • O O • O • � N C C o E cp CO O O O 0 • O. r • .0 ; H N cm E d d $ ,_ E E H N O O O CO O • 0 0.12 Miles (0 cp (0 • r— 74TH SURVEY FOR: GARY UHDE -714 ■0010 114 Of 111 18 :/• of SLCION s. 1OW050i Si. 8.■88 22. / / 2277.92 5 88'22'57" W T STREET - - 2099.84- - - - 1649.84- - - - 1359.24- - -- 1106.24 -- tmT■ CAS, CORM- � \ I // pARCBL Q OF MON 8081 I /0 -_ =\�i/ s 0 120 240 360 SCALE: 1 INCH = 120 FEET That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. lying North of the CITY OF LINO 'ta a 1 LAKES RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. according to the 1 7• z 66 recorded plat thereof, lying westerly of a line to be hereafter '^ known as Line C. for the purposes of this description; and lying v`1 c.' 1 easterly of a line to be hereafter known as Line D. for the 1 1 p�O1 ..4' / I purposes of this description. B1 5� y' I 3 Said Line C being described as: Commencing at the Northeast corner LI '/ 1 of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 22 minutes 57 0 / seconds Nest, assumed basis of bearings, along the North line of maid Southeast Quarter for a distance of 1359.24 feet to the actual m / 1 point of beginning of said Line C to be hereby described; thence o o / I south 1 degree 37 minutes 03 seconds Bast along said Line C, for a = W' distance of 221.08 feet; thence South 19 degrees 24 minutes 42 3:u 6 b1, seconds East along said Line C for a distance of 314.42 feet, more �M1'1 .�1 or less, to terminate said Line C at the intersection thereof with / / ..',?,;i61. . said Northwesterly line of the CITY OP LINO LANES RIGHT -OP -MAY PLAT / / p 0 NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. I O / Said Line 0 being described as: Commencing at the Northeast corner p / of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 22 minutes 57 / seconds Nest, assumed basis of bearings, along the North line of / said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 1649'.84 feet to the actual point of beginning of said Line D to be hereby described; thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 seconds East along said Line 0 for a distance of 320.25 fest; thence South 19 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds Bast along said Line D for a distance of 308.62 feet. more or less, to terminate said Line D at the intersection thereof with said Northwesterly line of the CITY OF LINO LAIRS RIGHHT -OF -NAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. :3 Ci og � � Vim✓ e- 1 V� „is"' A 70.00 foot wide easement for ingress and egress purposes, over, under and across the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 31. Range 22, Anoka County. Minnesota. lying North of the CITY OF LINO LANES RIGHT -OP -RAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE, according to the recorded plat thereof. The Bast line of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 86 degrees 22 minutes 57 seconds Sense, assumed basis of bearings, along the North line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 2099.84 feet; thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 seconds Rest, a distance of 648.37 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be herein described; thence continuing South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 seconds Bast, a distance of 46.00 feet; thence southeasterly, a distance of 109.55 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the Northeast. having a radius of 165.00 feet and • central angle of 38 degrees 02 minutes 28 seconds; thence South 39 degrees 39 minutes 31 seconds Bast, tangent to said curve, for a distance of 70.31 feet, more or less, and said line to terminate at the intersection thereof with said Northwesterly line of the CITY OF LINO LAMS RIGHT- OF -ILAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. FIELD BOOK NUMBER PARCEL 1 That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of the CITY OF LINO LAM RIGHT -OF -NAY PLAT NO. 1. APOLLO DRIVE, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying westerly of a line to be hereafter known as •Line D. for the purposes of this description; and lying easterly of a line to be hereafter known as 'Line E• for the purposes of this description. Said Line D being described as: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degree. 22 minutes 57 seconds Nest, assumed basis of bearing., along the North line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 1649.84 feet to the actual point of beginning of said Line D to be hereby described: thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 second. East along said Line D for a distance of 320.25 feet; thence South 19 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds Eaet along said Line D for a distance of 308.62 feet, more or less, to terminate maid Line D at the intersection thereof with said Northwesterly line of the CITY•OF LINO LAKES RIGHT -OP -NAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. Said Line 8 being described as: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 22 minutes 57 seconds Nest, assumed basis of bearings, along the North line of said Southesst Quarter for a distance of 2099.84 feet to the h point of beginning of said Line B to be hereby described; thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 ...condo East along .aid.Line 8 for a distance of 694.37 feet; thence southeasterly, along said Line 2, a distance of 109.55 feet, along • tangential curve, concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 165.00 feet and a central angle of 38 degrees 02 minutes 28 seconds; thence South 39 degrees 39 minutes 31 second. Haat, tangent to said curve, along said Line B for a distance of 70.31 feet, more or leas, to terminate said Line E at the intersection thereof with said Northwesterly line of the CITY OF LINO LAKES RIGHT -OP -MAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. r FAX: 493 -578 • • • 11 893.10 893.31 961-F 34,",4c.if&D.ZO% 74Eh STREET F-3— 1111W •••. ....... sannAlran,es,..swo."...nonern..., imo CIINAI ----------- .......................... • _tovig-e.:44) -------------------------------- _ -------- 0 174462 sq. ft. 4.005 acres. MARVY STREET 24"A 899.93 orb eC). 4-4Pc --"--VP--" 902 ----------- ----- 74)01' • ""'77.-'"'".- --- 2r1t7 Ito O's 90 A lyeir,P". 900.12 \0" RCP FES •6 MAP IS COMPOSITE OF 0 50 100 200 Graphics Scale (in feet) LEGEND WETLAND BOUNDARY .3- SILT FENCE FIELD TOPO DATA. CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. & BOUNDARY SURVEY SHEET [ I iATIE:00 PRELIMINARY MINARY GRADING PLAN APOLLO BUSINESS CENTER . • . I INO I AKFS MINNFSOTA her 171 the No.: wow CADD RUE: Memorandum To: Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: May 31, 2000 Re: Other Updates There are some projects that the Environmental Board has made recommendations on in the past that are now being implemented. In addition to the Clearwater Creek project, Behms and Rice Lake Estates Park will be seeded with native materials in about a week. The Otter Lake Greenway has been planted and seeded with natives as well. The Civic Center Complex has had good germination of the native grasses and forbs. In the Forestry division, Hackberries were planted on the boulevard areas that were included on the last fall contract. Trees that died from last year are being replaced. 1 • Memorandum To: Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: May 31, 2000 Re: Clearwater Creek Update I have enclosed a copy of the draft environmental education handout for Clearwater Creek. Also please find a rendering of the buffer signs that will be posted along the buffer areas. The signs are 6" by 9" and will be placed about 3 feet off of the ground. The developer is working on the eradication of buckthorn, and there is also some purple Ioosestrife in the area. Northern Prairie Restoration will be seeding the area soon. Northern Prairie is also working on the invasive plant issues. • 1 The developer has made substantial efforts to restore and Ilenhance wetland and upland habitats within the greenways. In wooded areas dominated by mature oak, maple and basswood trees, these efforts have included removal of non - native invasive shrubs such as buckthom, prickly ash, and honeysuckle. Removing dense shrub growth will allow sunlight to reach the ground and stimulate the growth of lush herbaceous ground cover. Some degraded wetland and grassland plant communities have been replaced with diverse, native plant communities. Because of use of portions of the site as pasture, many of the grasslands had been previously converted to agricultural pasture crops such as timothy and alfalfa. Restoring native vegetation within these areas will improve the aesthetic and wildlife values. In total, more than 35 acres of degraded plant communities have been restored to provide more diverse and higher quality wildlife habitats. Long -term management plans include repeat treatments of woodlands as necessary, to prevent re- invasion by buckthorn and other weedy shrubs. Grasslands buffering wetlands will be monitored for invasive weeds and shrubs and management tools such as fire, spray and mechanical control may be used to remove undesirable species. Along with the privileges of living near this unique resource come responsibilities for protecting it for all others to enjoy. These responsibilities begin with wise management of adjacent lots to limit contaminants from entering wetlands. Water running off lawns may include nutrients and pesticides that may harm natural 40 communities located down stream. Careful use of lawn chemicals will help minimize the potential for contaminants from entering the system. Because the greenways are public lands, no mowing or disposal of private yard waste such as leaves, grass clippings, and branches is allowed. Even these biodegradable wastes will harm wetlands and adjacent buffers by suffocating natural plant growth and adding excess nutrients. Ultimately, these nutrients flow through waterways and end up in our lakes and rivers. The greenway boundaries shown on the adjoining map are clearly identified by signs. By following the guidelines for these areas it will ensure the success of this unique environment and preserve it for future generations. Additional information is available from the City Environmental Program Coordinator at (651) 982 -2400. • • • • Developed by GOR -EM, LLC. 763 - 755 -1717 7 OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION PLLN OF CLEARWATER CREEK 3RD ADDITION A UNIT i7EVYT c1.,4111: 11.:.L4 • ,rr &morn r Car ri..w.Ara Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition is among the most unique and ecologically sensitive residential developments within the metro area. Gor -em Development and the City of Imo Lakes have made significant efforts to protect and incorporate more than 60 acres of woodland, prairie, and wetland open space habitats for the benefit of the environment and residents. Walking trails and habitat corridors connect this series of greenways, which wll ultimately be owned by the City of Lino Lakes. Nearly 60 percent of all lots in the development abut these greenways and trails, allowing convenient access and visual enjoyment of the areas. The concept for this project originated as a joint effort between the City and developer and represents a focussed effort to protect the environment while meeting demands for single - family lots in Lino Lakes. Wetlands have received considerable attention during the past two decades because of an increased public recognition of the abundant social and ecological benefits they provide. These benefits include: • Wetlands filter surface water runoff prior to discharge into streams and lakes, protecting water quality. • Wetlands store water during peak runoff periods, lessening potential for downstream flooding. Water is then released gradually, contributing to the maintenance of stream flow rates during low flow periods. • Wetlands provide habitat for a variety of insects, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Deeper wetlands also, provide important spawning habitat for several fish species. More recently, attention has been given to providing upland buffers to protect wetlands from runoff from developed and agricultural areas. Buffers remove contaminants before they enter wetlands, preventing degradation of water quality and plant communities_ Buffers also provide habitat for upland wildlife species and nesting cover for waterfowl and other water birds. Protecting areas supporting mature, high value oak, ash, maple, and basswood trees benefits wildlife and adds visual diversity to the development. Opportunities for observing birds and many other species of woodland wildlife enhance the enjoyment of development residents and all users of the trail. 05/17/2000 10:42 6124018798 KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV WETLAND BUFFER ZONE NO Structures, Grading, Mowing, or Filling Beyond this point. PAGE 02 • Memorandum To: Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: May 31, 2000 Re: Spring Recycling Day Please find attached the summary tonnage report for Spring Recycle Day. We brought in almost 51 tons of recyclables this spring as compared to 33 tons for last fall. 1 • •o H C H rn o cu o a n • N N r LO CV CO O � 00 OD c.i 0)). 0)) I- N N O r r 00 CO CO 0 - N �, CO CO N c n ctS N M ' F t r n 0 r r CC 0) o C la N d' O o 03 c0 CA CO m J' co N- N M r E D Q U N N w u) N (1) _ .� C� s C. O m . 0! c m Z o n Ti co - 13 E ii 'L E CD L 2 .S V < 2 > J.R.'S Appliance Asset Recovery Greenman Technologies • • NIO 0 — 1:-.. 0 co Cl) 0 L O 0 Y co x, = O O N C .0 0 v d a. i 0 0 O M Cfl (D M M M • O NU) In el. 000 r 00 N m N (O (N O N O V 0 ff} V " if) T Efl T (A N N C71 M t0 N rt � L0 Q) N M r N O S- O N O O 4 N N (0 >, i co c-.1 w o a)o wY0000 r U � o p Q) Q) U O: Q) Q) -�U) a) U > Q) Q) o Q) Q 0 0 N N 0 0 >+ 0 >, >+ 0 0 0 0 o U U 0 0 0 N U U U 0 U CO U N N j, O N N co C) j Memorandum To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: 05/23/00 Re: Restoration Information Please find attached an article from The Joumal of Restoration Ecology on "Defining the Limits of Restoration: The Need for Realistic Goals ". The article describes different ways that individuals might look at restoration projects. I think we should all understand there are different types of restoration goals that individuals might be looking at with any one project. Table 1 lists the levels of goals with the advantages and disadvantages for each category. I think we should be defining the level of restoration goals as we discuss each project. • Defining the Limits of Restoration: The Need for Realistic Goals Joan G. Ehrenfeldl Abstract The search for a universal statement of goals for eco- logical restoration continues to generate discussion and controversy. I discuss the diverse roots of restora- tion ecology, and show how the complex lineages within the field have led to diverse, and divergent, sets of goals. I then review the three major themes that currently are used to develop statements of goals: restoration of species, restoration of whole ecosystems or landscapes, and the restoration of ecosystem ser- vices, and point out both the advantages and the limi- tations and problems associated with each category. Finally, I suggest that restoration ecology would be better served by recognizing that the diversity of con- ditions requiring restoration demands much flexibil- ity in goal setting, and that restorationists should seek to develop guidelines for defining the sets of condi- tions under which different kinds of goals are appro- priate. I further suggest that goals would be more eas- ily and more appropriately set if restorationists would set forth at the outset the true scope and limitations of what is possible in a given project. Key words: goal- setting, wetlands, conservation biol- ogy, ecosystem management, ecosystem services, land- scape management. Introduction The specification of goals- for restoration projects is frequently described as the most important compo- nent of a project, because it sets expectations, drives the detailed plans for actions, and determines the kind and extent of post - project monitoring. Not surprisingly then, the nature of restoration goals is the subject of fre- 1Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, 14 College Farm Road, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, U.S.A., email ehrenfel@rci.rutgers.edu © 2000 Society for Ecological Restoration quent comment (Aronson & Le Floc'h 1996; Box 1996; Hobbs & Norton 1996; Kershner 1997; and many oth- ers). Although the statement of restoration goals can take many forms, it remains undear if there is an opti- mal way of specifying goals, and if so, what form this statement should take. In particular, debate within the communities of both restorationists and conservation- ists has been concerned with the appropriate level of organization at which goals should be specified (Aron- son & Le Floc'h 1996; Goldstein 1999). The level of orga- nization (species, communities, ecosystems, water- sheds, or landscapes) in turn reflects the ecological processes that practitioners may perceive as critical to the restoration effort (Allen et al. 1997; and associated papers therein). Like conservation efforts, restoration can be oriented around particular species, can address community composition, or may be centered on whole ecosystems or landscapes (Risser 1995; Falk et al. 1996; Kershner 1997). Goals may also be stated in terms of ecosystem services. The recent attempt to place a dollar value on such services (Costanza et al. 1997) has accentuated the interest in using services as a basis for goal - setting. The debate as to which of these levels is the appropriate, op- timal, or best focus of restoration and conservation goals has excited strongly worded statements (Gold- stein 1999; Risser 1999; Walker 1999) addressed to both conservationists and restorationists. Here, I review the relative merits and pitfalls associated with specifying restoration goals based on species, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services, and offer some suggestions. Multiple Goals from Multiple Origins The goals set for restoration projects are highly vari- able, in part, because restoration ecology has a complex; heterogeneous lineage. Four main themes can be dis- cerned (Fig. 1). Each reflects a largely separate course of development of the theory and practice of restoration. One line is derived from conservation biology and is centered on the restoration of individual species. Spe- cies- centered goals for restoration are reflected in a va- riety of recent publications (Falk et al. 1996). Conserva- tion biologists have also emphasized the recognition and preservation of rare or endangered communities, and restoration goals centered on the reestablishment of such assemblages can be considered a facet of the con- servation- derived root of restoration. Efforts by state Natural Heritage programs to identify and restore rare communities exemplify this theme. Practitioners of this form of restoration emphasize the need to duplicate natural conditions as a standard of restoration success. Currently, the restoration of communities— particular associations of organisms —is a primary focus of many restoration efforts. Restoration Ecology Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 2 -9 MARCH 200( Defining Restoration Goals 11110 BIOLOGY endangered species 1 endangered communities GEOGRAPHY Landscape ecology watersheds ecosystem management RESTORATION ECOLOGY WETLAND MANAGEMENT ecosystem functions 1 ecosystem services REVEGETATIONIREHABILITATION OF EXTREMELY DISTURBED LANDS vegetative cover "natural" community Figure 1. The separate strands contributing to the develop- ment of restoration ecology. Developments within each strand have contributed to the complexity of the field. Another historical base within restoration ecology comes from the disciplines of geography and landscape ecology. Practitioners in these fields look at entire land- scapes (Zonneveld 1995; Aronson & Le Floc'h 1996; Heathcote 1998; Naveh 1998), often using watersheds as the unit of restoration. This approach is at the opposite extreme of ecological organization from the species - centered approach, and reflects its origin in disciplines that have rarely involved studies of individual species. 410,, dscape -scale goals derive, in part, from the long his - in Europe of landscape management. Recently, the ecosystem /landscape approach has been incorporated into the idea of ecosystem management (Grumbine 1994; Vogt et al. 1997) and is the most commonly cited ideal for setting restoration goals. Wetland restoration represents a third, separate lin- eage within the discipline of restoration ecology. The practice of wetland restoration and creation developed independently of the above two strands, and was driven, to a large extent, by legislative mandates for the mitigation of damage to wetlands by economic devel- opment and by agriculture. These laws, in turn, were driven by the perception that many of the ecological processes that take place in wetlands are of value to so- ciety; wetland mitigation, thus, became an effort to re- place those processes and values. Although the percep- tion of ecosystem services performed more broadly by all ecosystems was a quasi - independent development (de Groot 1992; Costanza et al. 1997), the concept has been most extensively developed within the arena of wetland management as the perceived value of ecologi- cal processes within wetlands became widely recog- nized (Anonymous 1995; Zedler et al. 1998). Ecosystem services now are incorporated extensively in wetland management programs, in which "functional replace - Ont" is the explicit goal of laws and regulations. A fourth, independent strand in the braided structure of restoration ecology is the long history of attempting to manage the extreme, often toxic, results of resource extraction. An extensive literature has developed, de- scribing methods for reestablishing some semblance of a functioning ecosystem on spoils, mine pits, overbur- dens, salinized or highly eroded soils, etc. (Lal & Stew- art 1992; Munshower 1994). Restorationists working on such projects often do not pretend to create replicas of the ecosystems that were originally on the site; rather, the goal is usually to establish a functional ecosystem. The disparate historical roots of restoration ecology are apparent in the diversity of implicit and explicit goals of restoration efforts. In order to see how restorations are ori- ented in current work, I surveyed nearly 100 articles pub- lished during the past three years in Restoration Ecology. About 25% of the papers described projects whose pur- poses were to restore species, whereas 30% addressed the restoration of ecosystems, watersheds or landscapes, with little or no attention to individual species. The remaining 45% were concerned with a variety of goals addressing the restoration of particular assemblages of species, or levels of diversity, or sets of biotic interactions. Approximately 15% of the projects involved extremely disturbed condi- tions, including mine sites, waste sites, gravel pits, and roadsides; 18% were concerned with wetland restoration and creation. The rest were more or less evenly divided among forest, aquatic, grassland /prairie, and other types of ecosystems. In a special issue on riparian restoration (Restoration Ecology, Volume 5(4), 1997), the majority of au- thors discussed landscape -level criteria for setting goals and priorities. Thus, recent practice in restoration ecology continues to reflect, in its published results, the variety of historical sources for the field. Restoration of Species The restoration of species is predicated on an under- standing of the autecology and habitat requirements of the species of concern. Common foci for research include the genetic structure of populations and metapopula- tions, population biology, minimum viable population size, issues of local adaptedness, and the kinds of inter - specific interactions (predators, prey, mutualists, com- petitors) that may be important in establishing or main- taining populations. The advantages of species- centered restoration are clear (Table 1): species threatened by extinction are res- cued, or at least given a better chance of survival. The recent delisting of several endangered species testifies to the importance and possible success of this approach. There are several problems, however, that may be associ- ated with attempts to restore individual species (Table 1). First, the definition of a species' habitat, which is an es- sential, primary step in defining conditions for both conservation and restoration, can involve implicit, un- recognized knowledge of ecosystem- or landscape -level interactions and processes. Failure to understand. the 3 MARCH 2000 Restoration Ecology Defining Restoration Goals Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of designing restoration with respect to different types of goals. Level Advantages Disadvantages & Causes of Failure Species Rescue of endangered species Lack of recognition of ecosystem- and landscape - Increase in biodiversity level interactions and processes Inadvertent damage to other species Attention to one target species may divert attention to other species Ecosystem functions Recognition of large -scale processes Definition of "ecosystem" unclear; can lead to problems identifying unit to be restored necessary for species' persistence p Encouragement of integration of management Definition of "ecosystem function" unclear; goals of diverse agencies, interest groups functions are heterogeneous in scale and generality, Recognition of dynamic nature of ecological and are poorly correlated with each other entities Ecosystem services Generation of public support, funding Same problems of definition, scale as with ecosystem Specific actions readily identified function Value depends on constancy of "willingness -to -pay," economic conditions Creation of one service may preclude others larger -scale processes may lead to failure of reintroduc- tions, many of which may appear paradoxical (Mon- talvo et al. 1997). An excellent example of such prob- lems is the attempt to create habitat for the endangered Light- footed clapper rail in salt marshes of southern California (Zedler 1996). Although the correct vegeta- tion and hydrology were restored at the mitigation site, nitrogen cycling was limited by sediment texture, re- sulting in stands of Spartina foliosa (saltmarsh grass) that were too short and sparse to allow birds to breed. Ef- forts to increase nitrogen supply by fertilization only re- sulted in allowing another plant, Salicornia bigelovii, to competitively displace the desired grasses (Boyer & Zedler 1999). Because of the linkage of sediment texture at the created site to nitrogen dynamics, and their link- age to the composition of the vegetation, all attempts to restore the rail at this site have been abandoned (J. Zedler, personal communication). It is likely that simi- lar unforeseen connections between habitat variables and ecosystem or landscape processes have affected other species -based restoration efforts. Another problem, sometimes associated with species - based restoration, is the ancillary damage done to other species as a result of an intense effort focused on one spe- cies. Meffe (1992), for example, described attempts to re- store salmonid fisheries in the Pacific Northwest as "techno- arrogance" because the methods used to increase fish populations are causing a variety of other conserva- tion problems, such as increased fishing of native salmon stocks and genetic pollution of native populations. He points out that similar problems have arisen with efforts to restore other endangered species, including sea turtles. Species- oriented restoration implicitly demands that the restoration effort attempt to recreate the habitat of the target species, without regard to the habitat require- ments of co- occurring species, including species over the complete spectrum of organisms — microbial, floral, and faunal —that make up an ecosystem. The widely ac- cepted view of communities as individualistic associa- tions of species suggests that the community that devel- ops in a site restored to meet a particular species' needs may or may not be similar to communities in which the target species was originally found. Thus, the agency or group that decides which species should be the object of restoration efforts may inadvertently cause the loss of habitat for species for which there are no competing in- terest groups to generate public support. It follows that if conservation and restoration are focused exclusively on species, as called for by Goldstein (1999), for exam- ple, non - target species, especially small, obscure species in poorly known groups, may inadvertently suffer. Ecosystem Functions and Ecosystem Management Perceptions of some of the problems associated with spe- cies-based conservation, together with a widespread in- crease in appreciation for the integrated function of whole landscapes, led to the development of ecosystem based paradigms for directing conservation and restoration ef- forts (Risser 1995; Walker 1992, 1995), and of ecosystem management as an approach to land management and res- toration (Grumbine 1994; Christensen et al. 1996; Pearson & Klimas 1996). This approach recognizes that the viability of populations of all species, including rare and endan- gered species, depends on the maintenance of large -scale as well as small- scale, ecological processes, on the presena of a characteristic mosaic of community types over a broac area, and on the movements of individuals and popula lions over large areas. The advantages of using ecosystem management a: an organizational framework for restoration have bees well summarized by Allen (1996) (Table 1). He point 4 Restoration Ecology MARCH 20( Defining Restoration Goals *at the ecosystem -level framework encourages res- torationists to both pay attention to landscape -level dy- namics and to attempt to integrate an understanding of these large -scale processes with the small-scale processes of soil ecology and species biology. He also points out that the "management" part of the phrase encourages thinking about the widest possible range of interventions that affect both large- and small-scale processes. The use of ecosystem -level goals for restoration and conservation has been strongly criticized, in large part be- cause key concepts and terms are poorly defined (Gold- stein 1999) (Table 1). For example, the idea of ecosystem management suffers from vagueness in the definition of ecosystem, as well as in the definitions of other terms used to define the goals of ecosystem management (i.e., ecosys- tem integrity or ecological health) (Wilcove & Blair 1995). Allen (1996) has pointed out, however, that many of the concepts used in species -based conservation and restora- tion are similarly vague. "Minimum viable population size" can be given a mathematical definition, but is hard to apply to real -life situations. Levels of anthropogenic dis- turbance and pollution that affect the health of popula- tions are vigorously debated (for example, the controver- sies over organochlorine pollutants in the Great Lakes and iiieffects on organisms [Carpenter 1995; and related ar- ]). The goal of conservation biology that "compo- nents of the ecosystem should [not] be perturbed beyond natural boundaries of variation" (Mangel et al. 1996, p. 338) leaves open the definitions of what are the "compo- nents of the ecosystem" (never mind the definition of eco- system) as well as what are the natural boundaries of vari- ation. Many other examples could be cited. Lack of precision in the definition of ecological terms has been a controversial issue for decades in ecology as a science, but has not prevented its effective application in both conser- vation and restoration. Thus, although criticisms of the vagueness of terms used to develop ecosystem based goals may be legitimate (Goldstein 1999), the same criti- cisms apply to other foci for restoration. To deny the im- portance of ecosystem -level processes because of prob- lems of definition ignores both the importance of these processes and the long history of using poorly defined terms to good purpose in many specific cases of restora- tion and conservation. However, even if we accept the fuzziness of the gen- eral concepts invoked in ecosystem management and restoration, there are additional problems of definition that hamper the use of ecosystem functions as a basis for restoration goals (Table 1). The fundamental premise of this approach is the recognition of ecosystem processes, 11111ctions, that create and drive the system, and that D1Oth a result of structure (e.g., species composition) and a causative factor in creating structure. However, the concept of ecosystem function is equally vague. Every discussion of this idea lists a somewhat different set of items. Table 2 lists an amalgam of items culled from a va- riety of sources; it is as idiosyncratic and individualistic as (and has no greater validity than) any other list. The point is that the processes that make up ecosystem func- tion are as variable as the definition of ecosystem itself. Just within this list, there is tremendous heterogeneity. Some processes, such as nutrient cycling or .energy flow integrate the activities of numerous organisms (e.g., the extraordinary, if poorly recognized, diversity of soil or- ganisms; Wall & Moore 1999). Others, such as succession or mutualisms, reflect the biology of particular species and are population -level phenomena, rather than ecosys- tem processes as usually defined. Some processes (e.g., diversity) reflect purely biological phenomena, whereas others reflect purely physical phenomena (disturbance regimes caused by storms) and still others reflect com- plex mixtures of biological and physical forces (soil for- mation and water quality). The items in Table 2 are also heterogeneous in terms of the scales of space and time over which they apply and over which they are mea= sured. Some items (e.g., succession and mutualisms) are variously included or excluded from lists of ecosystem functions, depending on the viewpoint of the list - maker. Measurable components of each of the processes listed in Table 2 have the same problems of heterogene- ity, although they are more readily definable. Table 3 lists, as examples, the quantifiable components of three of the most commonly cited ecosystem functions. Again, the measurable components of each process are heterogeneous with respect to the time and spatial scales of the phenomena they index, and heterogeneous Table 2. Processes included under the rubric "ecosystem functions." Category Process Material flow Physical elements Biological structure Energy flow Nutrient cycling Nutrient retention /loss Carbon storage Productivity Water flow Water turnover rates, flow rates (aquatic) Transfers to /from other ecosystems Disturbance regimes (fire, disease, storms) Water quality Landscape structure Soil formation Trophic structure Predation /herbivory rates Succession Resilience /resistance Diversity Mutualisms Passive vs. active dispersal MARCH 2000 Restoration Ecology 5 Defining Restoration Goals Table 3. Quantifiable components of selected ecosystem processes. Ecosystem Function Quantifiable Component Energy flow Food web architecture (number and kinds of trophic links) Respiration rates Ratios of respiration to productivity or to biomass Alternate energy flow paths (e.g., detrital vs. herbivory) Decomposition rates Trophic pyramid Nutrient cycling Mineralization rates Decomposition rates Organic matter "quality" indices Standing stocks of nutrients (total and /or available) Losses due to leaching, gas loss, erosion Different processes for different nutrients (e.g., immobilization of N, chemical forms of P, cation exchange, solubility of ca, anion adsorption of S) Identity of limiting nutrient(s) Productivity Rates of growth; biomass change per unit time Cover, maximum standing crop biomass Carbon flow (i.e., respiration rates or 02 uptake rates) Primary vs. secondary or net ecosystem production Primary production: allocation to different tissue types (e.g., root:shoot, woody:leaf) The widely acknowledged association of high plant diver- sity at low to moderate levels of productivity (Rosenzweig & Abramsky 1993) also suggests that relationships among ecosystem functions are complex and not readily predict- able or generalizable from simple laboratory models or from studies of a small number of ecosystem types. with respect to the number of species of organisms in- volved in the expression of the index. Furthermore, correlations among the components of Table 3 (or Table 2) are either unknown or are variable. For example, in Swedish forests experimentally fertilized with nitrogen, the amount of carbon in the forest floor in- creases with added N (= nutrient cycling), but the micro- bial respiration rate (= energy flow) and biomass de- crease (Nohrstedt et al. 1989). Experimental studies of the correlations between biodiversity and various measures of ecosystem function often show increases in productivity, plant cover, resilience, and biomass with increasing spe- cies diversity (Tilman et al. 1996; Naeem & Li 1997; McGrady -Steed et al. 1997; Tilman et al. 1997). But these studies are frequently highly simplified microcosms of protists (McGrady -Steed et al. 1997; Naeem & Li 1997), or relatively simple experimental grassland or grassland mi- crocosms. Opposite patterns have been demonstrated in other ecosystems (e.g., in boreal forests, as studied by Wardle et al. 1997a, 1997b). No studies have been con- ducted in systems such as temperate salt marshes, which are known for both their low plant diversity and their high productivity, or sedge wetlands of the coastal plain, which are known for their high diversity and low productivity. Ecosystem Services "Ecosystem services" are a third major source of goals for restoration and conservation. The specification of ecosys- tem services is as varied as the specification of ecosystem function. Three recently proposed lists of services are given in Table 4. The categories of services are overlapping but not identical; many other such lists in the literature simi- larly reflect the individuality of their authors. Although the services themselves are poorly defined, they all share the characteristic of being driven by considerations of human valuation. The advantage of using ecosystem services as a goal for restoration (Table 1) is that the compelling and ob- vious human interest generates dollars and political sup- port, just as species of charismatic megafauna generate support for conservation (Wilcove & Blair 1995). However, one runs the risk that changes in technology, the economy, and /or society will undercut or devalue the service. This risk has been frequently pointed out with respect to efforts to place a dollar value on ecosystem services, such as that by Costanza et al. (1997). In addition, it is likely that re- storing one particular service will preclude the provision of other services. For example, Marble (1992) details the par- ticular characteristics of flora, fauna, hydrology, landscape setting, soils, etc. needed to promote the various ecosystem services provided by wetlands. Comparison of these lists reveals that the features needed to produce one service are sometimes the opposite of those needed for other services. For example, to promote nutrient removal, the water source to the wetland should have high nu- trient concentrations (low quality), but to support bird habitat, high- quality water (low nutrient concentrations) is needed. To promote nutrient removal, a restricted outlet, low flow rates and mineral soils of any texture are recom- mended, but to support the export of production to down- stream systems, moderate flow rates, permanently open, large outlets, and fine- textured soils are required. Al- though no one expects any given wetland to provide all possible services, the creation of qualities to maximize one specified service may well preclude other services which would otherwise be possible (Table 1). Several other issues are germane to the discussion of setting restoration goals. The highly dynamic, ever - changing nature of ecosystems has been frequently pointed out (Pickett & Parker 1994), but the implications of this paradigm for choosing restoration goals are often conveniently ignored. Efforts to restore a species by cre- Restoration Ecology MARCH 2000 Defining Restoration Goals *Table 4. Ecosystem services proposed in recent publications. Costanza et al. 1997 Anonymous 1995 Christensen et al. 1996 Gas regulation Climate regulation Disturbance regulation Water regulation Water supply Water treatment Erosion control Soil formation Nutrient cycling Pollination Biological control Food production Raw materials (e.g., rubber, fiber, lumber) Recreation • Floodwater storage, attenuation Maintenance of fish habitat Biodiversity Wood production Water quality maintenance Waterfowl, furbearer population maintenance Maintain hydrological cycles Regulate climate Clean air and water Atmospheric chemistry Pollination of crops, etc. Maintain soils Store and cycle nutrients Detoxify pollutants Provide beauty and inspiration ating habitat may ignore its temporal instability. For ex- ample, Chrysopsis falcata (sickle - leaved aster), a rare plant in New Jersey, grows on bare sand in open, unvegetated areas of the New Jersey Pinelands. Presumably, the plant relied on periodic intense wildfires to create new habitat, and seed banks to survive the long periods between fires during which its habitat became revegetated. The plant . has recently become established on some sand and gravel mine sites, whose expanses of bare sand offer ideal habitat. When mining activities threaten these pop- ulations, efforts are made to create new habitat for those populations. These habitats are by definition ephemeral, yet restoration plans rarely take this fact into account. This example raises another issue. Many habitats that support rare plants and animals, or high diversity, are the result of human activities, and depend on these ac- tivities for their continued existence. The importance of grazing by domestic animals has been pointed out for species -rich grasslands in both the United States and Eu- rope (Bakker & Berendse 1999; Howe 1999). Similarly, limestone fens in New Jersey support many rare plants and the endangered bog turtle; recent research suggests that they depend on grazing by dairy cattle to maintain the unforested conditions that these species require (J. Tesauro, personal communication). Schuyler (1999) has similarly pointed out that many of the rare plants of the New Jersey Pinelands thrive in habitats created by hu- man activities, and that human activity is necessary to help them survive. The point is that, in order to meet a variety of restoration goals, it is sometimes necessary to harness human activities and presence, thus perpetuat- ing something that cannot be considered "natural." What Should Be the Goals of Restoration? In this analysis, I have pointed out both advantages and limitations to each of the various paradigms for devel- oping restoration goals. If all frameworks for develop- ing restoration goals are .flawed, how should restora- tionists proceed? I suggest two ways of thinking about restoration goals that may help resolve the problem. First, recognize—explicitly and clearly —that there is no one paradigm or context for setting restoration goals. Goals need to be developed appropriately for each project, relative to scope and reasons for the restoration effort. The sometimes acrimonious search for a single paradigm for restoration and conservation (Goldstein 1999; Risser 1999; Walker 1999) ignores the tremendous diversity of both ecological conditions and the ways in which humans interact with nature. There is no reason why the goals appropriate to the restoration of bauxite mine spoil or the land around a zinc smelter should be transferred to efforts to restore large watersheds or whole landscapes, or particular endangered species re- stricted to peculiar habitats. It is as if ecologists are in search of general laws comparable to the laws of Newto- nian physics (e.g., one gas law that works for all gases under all conditions), but seek to apply them to the probabilistic quantum world. I suggest that ecologists need to develop probabilistic laws. What are the sets of conditions under which it is important to address large - scale ecosystem processes? Species- specific mutualisms? Can sets of conditions be recognized that mandate par- ticular methods or goals for restoration projects? With a view towards starting such a search for sets of conditions, I suggest that when inputs of physical energy, in the form of water or wind movement, are dominating forces in structuring an ecosystem, then ecosystem- or landscape -level processes which integrate the activity of many species and /or address physical components of the system should be the primary focus in developing restora- tion plans. This principle is recognized, for example, in the large -scale criteria used for planning and prioritizing ri- parian zone restoration (see Restoration Ecology volume 5[4S1), where the force of flowing water is the primary MARCH 2000 Restoration Ecology 7 Defining Restoration Goals structuring element of the system. Similarly, the Ever- glades are dependent on the large -scale flow of surface water, and coastal dune restorations must start with the forcible, large transport of sand by wind that structures the environment. In environments less strongly affected by the kinetic energy of flowing fluids, such as grasslands or upland forests, other generalities should be sought. Similarly, separate generalities could be sought for sites with extreme soil chemical or physical conditions. By thus identifying sets of conditions that require different types of goals and procedures for restoration, the diversity of both ecosystems and situations requiring restoration (as reflected in the history of restoration ecology sketched above) can be accommodated. Second, be realistic within the community of ecolo- gists and restorationists, and even more so with the public, about what restoration ecology can accomplish. Restorations carried out to meet goals of conserving species, or providing specific services, or revegetating extremely damaged lands, are both appropriate and necessary. But these restorations should be recognized for what they are, without the pretense that they result in a replica of the original, "natural" system, or that they are, by definition, superior to or inferior to com- munity- or ecosystem -based restoration. Rather, they are appropriate under certain sets of conditions. Being realistic is also necessary in portraying the results of ecosystem - oriented restorations. Although whole sys- tems can indeed be created, their resemblance to natural systems is often questionable. Certainly, the available in- formation suggests that many restorations do not closely resemble "the real thing, ,' even after more than a decade (Bischel- Machung et al. 1996; Galatawitsch & van der Valk 1996; Zedler & Calloway 1999). Moreover, restora- tions may succeed with some taxa but fail with others at the same time (Simenstad & Thom 1996), whereas others appear to be largely successful (Clewell 1999). Realism in recognizing the limits of restoration would do much to resolve the conflicts among restorationists with different kinds of restoration projects, because it would no longer be necessary to shoe -horn every resto- ration into the same set of goals. Realism -or honesty- in admitting and portraying the differences between a functionally created ecosystem and the presumed origi- nal and natural system will also do much to help guide legislation and policy. For example, current wetland policy is based on the premise that creation and restora- tion of wetlands (mitigation) replace damaged or de- stroyed natural sites with sites of equivalent ecological complexity. Perhaps if the community of restorationists were more forthcoming in saying that, although a func- tioning wetland can be created, it should not be consid- ered an exact replacement for the original, wetland pol- icy would be more stringent in determining when mitigation can be offered in lieu of preservation. Acknowledgments I am grateful to the Board of Directors and the staff of the Environmental Defense Fund for the opportunity to de- velop, present, and discuss these ideas. D. Ehrenfeld provided valuable comments on an initial draft. LITERATURE CITED Allen, E., W. W. Covington, and D. A. Falk. 1997. Developing the conceptual basis for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5:275 -276. Allen, M. F. 1996. The role of restoration ecology in ecosystem management: opportunities and responsibilities. Pages 11- 22 in D. L. Pearson and C. V. Klimas, editors. The role of res- toration in ecosystem management. Society for Ecological Restoration, Madison, Wisconsin. Anonymous. 1995. Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. Na- tional Research Council, Washington, D. C. Aronson, J., and E. Le Floc'h. 1996. Vital landscape attributes: missing tools for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 4: 327 -333. Bakker, J. P., and F. Berendse. 1999. Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathlands commu- nities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:63 -67. Bischel - Machung, L., R. P. Brooks, S. S. Yates, and K. L. Hoover. 1996. Soil properties of reference wetlands and wetland cre- ation projects in Pennsylvania. Wetlands 16:532 -541. Box, J. 1996. Setting objectives and defining outputs for ecological restoration and habitat creation. Restoration Ecology 4:427 -432. Boyer, K. E., and J. B. Zedler. 1999. Nitrogen addition could shift plant community composition in a restored California salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 7:74 -85. Carpenter, S. 1995. Organochlorine contaminants in the Great Lakes. Ecological Applications 5:291 -292. Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D'Antonio, R. Francis, J. F. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, and R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 6:665 -691. Clewell, A. F. 1999. Restoration of riverine forest at Hall Branch on phosphate -mined land, Florida. Restoration Ecology 7:1 -14. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Han- non, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253 -260. de Groot, R. S. 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management, and decision - making. Wolters - Noordhoff, Groningen, the Netherlands. Falk, D. A., C. I. Millar, and M. Olwell. 1996. Restoring diver- sity-strategies for the reintroduction of endangered plants. Island Press, Washington, D. C. Galatawitsch, S. M., and A. G. van der Valk. 1996. The vegetatior of restored and natural prairie wetlands. Ecological Applica• tions 6:102 -112. Goldstein, P. Z. 1999. Functional ecosystems and biodiversit3 buzzwords. Conservation Biology 13:247 -255. Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conser vation Biology 8:27 -38. Heathcote, I. W. 1998. Integrated watershed management: princi pies and practice. John Wiley, New York. Hobbs, R. J., and D. A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptu2 Restoration Ecology MARCH 20( • Defining Restoration Goals framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 4: 93 -110. Howe, H. F. 1999. Dominance, diversity and grazing in tallgrass restoration. Ecological Restoration 17:59 -66. Kershner, J. L. 1997. Setting riparian /aquatic restoration objectives within a watershed context. Restoration Ecology 5:15 -24. Lal, R., and B. A. Stewart. 1992. Soil restoration. Advances in Soil Science. Volume 17. Springer - Verlag, New York. Mangel, M., et al. 1996. Principles for the conservation of wild liv- ing resources. Ecological Applications 6:338 -362. Marble, A. 1992. A guide to wetland functional design. Lewis, Boca Raton, Florida. McGrady- Steed, J., P. Harris, and P. J. Morin. 1997. Biodiversity regulates ecosystem predictability. Nature 390:162 -165. Meffe, G. 1992. Techno- arrogance and halfway technologies: salmon hatcheries on the Pacific coast of North America. Conservation Biology 6:350 -354. Montalvo, A. M., S. L. Williams, K. J. Rice, S. L. Buchmann, C. Cory, S. N. Handel, G. P. Nabhan, R. Primack, and R. H. Ro- bichaux.1997. Restoration biology: a population biology per- spective. Restoration Ecology 5:277 -290. Munshower, F. F. 1994. Practical handbook of disturbed land revegetation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. • Naeem, S., and L. Li. 1997. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reli- ability. Nature 390:507 -509. Naveh, Z. 1998. Ecological and cultural landscape restoration and the cultural evolution towards a post - industrial symbiosis between human society and nature. Restoration Ecology 6: 135 -143. Nohrstedt, H.-0., K. Arnebrant, E. Baath, and B. Soderstrom. 1989. Changes in carbon content, respiration rate, ATP content, and microbial biomass in nitrogen - fertilized pine forest soils in Sweden. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19:323 -328. Pearson, D. L., and C. V. Klimas. 1996. The role of restoration in ecosystem management. Society for Ecological Restoration, Madison, Wisconsin. Pickett, S. T. A., and V. T. Parker. 1994. Avoiding the old pitfalls: op- portunities in a new discipline. Restoration Ecology 2:75 -79. Risser, P. G. 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Conser- vation Biology 9:742 -746. Risser, P. G. 1999. Examining relationships between ecosystem function and biodiversity: reply to Goldstein. Conservation Biology 13:438 -439. Rosenzweig, M. L., and Z. Abramsky. 1993. How are diversity and productivity related? Pages 52-65 in R. E. Ricklefs and D. Schluter, editors. Species diversity in ecological communi- ties. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Schuyler, A. E. 1999. Defining nature and protecting rare plants. Ecological Restoration 17:5 -7. Simenstad, C. A., and R. M. Thom. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog- Le -Hi -Te estuarine wetland. Ecological Applications 6:38 -56. Tilman, D., D. Wedin, and J. Knops. 1996. Productivity and sus - tainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosys- tems. Nature 379:718 -720. Tilman, D., J. Knops, D. Wedin, P. Reich, M. Ritchie, and E. Sie- man. 1997. The influence of functional diversity and compo- sition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300 -1302. Vogt, K, A., J. C. Gordon, J. P. Wargo, D. J. Vogt, H. Asbjornse, P. A. Palmiotto, H. J. Clark, J. L. O'Hara, W. S. Keaton, T. Patel -Weyn, and E. Witten. 1997. Ecosystems - balancing science with management. Springer - Verlag, NY. Walker, B. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conser- vation Biology 6:18 -23. Walker, B. 1995. Conserving biological diversity through ecosys- tem resilience. Conservation Biology 9:747 -752. Walker, B. 1999. The ecosystem approach to conservation: reply to Goldstein. Conservation Biology 13:436 -437. Wall, D., and J. C. Moore. 1999. Interactions underground. Bio- Science 49:109 -117. Wardle, D. A., O. Zackrisson, G. Hornbeg, and C. Gallet. 1997a. The influence of island area on ecosystem properties. Science 277:1296 -1299. Wardle, D. A., K. I. Bonner, and K. S. Nicholson. 1997b. Biodiver- sity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos 79:247 -258. Wilcove, D. S., and R. B. Blair. 1995. The ecosystem management bandwagon. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:345. Zedler, J. B. 1996. Coastal mitigation in southern California: the need for a regional restoration strategy. Ecological Applica- tions 6:84 -93. Zedler, J. B., and J. C. Calloway. 1999. Tracking wetland restora- tion: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restora- tion Ecology 7:69 -73. Zedler, J. B., M. Q. Fellows, and S. Trnka. 1998. Wastelands to wetlands: links between habitat protection and ecosystem science. Pages 69 -112 in M. L. Pace and P. Groffman, editors. Successes, limitations, and frontiers in ecosystem science. Springer- Verlag, New York. Zonneveld, I. S. 1995. Land ecology: an introduction to landscape ecology as a base for land evaluation, land management, and conservation. SPD Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. MARCH 2000 Restoration Ecology 9 Preliminary Overlay Designs for Park/ Greenway System 18 GIS Mapping of Vegetative Cover Types 2000 Merit Award • Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Planning & Conservation Development Brauer ear Associates, Ltd. Lino Lakes Handbook for Environmental Planning & Conservation Development; Lino Lakes, MN Project Overview THE CONSULTANT TEAM, CO -led by a landscape architect and an ecologist, was selected in the spring of 1998 by the City of Lino Lakes Environmental Committee to develop a handbook for environmental planning and conservation development. The project had the following goals: Develop an overall inventory of the ecological systems found within the city. Utilize GIS technologies to record found conditions and provide a comprehensive ecological underpinning for future land use decisions. Develop a set of action steps for protecting ecological systems on a city-wide scale. Develop a greenway system plan linking key ecological systems throughout the city. Develop a framework for restoration and management of the vari- ous ecological systems. Develop planning guidelines and process for a conservation devel- opment approach to community planning. Develop a framework for educational and volunteer programs. The fundamental planning premise behind the handbook was the community's collective vision to ensure a high quality of life in the city within the context of responsible land stewardship, economic viability, and long -term sustainability. The Environmental and Conservation De- velopment Planning Model introduced by the consultant team captured this aspiration and served as the model for developing the handbook. As the model illustrates, ecology, culture, and economy are intrinsically linked components of creating a sustainable community. This approach to community planning is defined in the handbook as "conservation development," which offers the prospect of developing land for human uses without compromising the integrity, quality, and sustainability of the surrounding ecological systems. Conservation developments also MASLA Membership Directory GIS Mapping of High Priority Ecological Zones GIS Mapping of Trails Character for proposed Trail Systems 2000,MASLA, DesigrrAwards • emphasize creating compelling living environments that foster a strong and vibrant sense of place and community. Unique Project Attributes and Award Worthiness The most compelling attributes of the handbook, and the basis for its award worthiness, are that it: Crystalizes the community's vision for responsible land steward- ship and environmental protection on a city-wide scale. Provides the action steps and set of tools necessary to achieve that vision. Compares and contrasts a conservation development approach to community planning against a conventional one, and in do- ing so shows that ecologically -sound land use decisions can be made while still encouraging a mixture of housing, main- taining overall densities, and protecting the welfare of the com- munity. The handbook also drives home the fact that ecological protection cannot happen in a vacuum, and to be successful, it must be in to, and balanced against, the economic realities of community deve opment and cultural needs (park, trails, etc.). Landscape Architects Role The landscape architect collaborated with the project ecologist to in- troduce a new model for community development where ecological protection is a fundamental underpinning of land -use decisions. The two collaborators then went on to lead the project planning team that included landscape architects, ecologists, city planners, developers, engineers, limnologists, and environmental education specialists. As a principal -in- charge, the landscape architect facilitated the planning process, co -led the team on all aspects of the plan development, and took the lead in writing the handbook. 2000 -2001 19