Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2001 Env Bd Packet• • • City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall February 28, 2001 6:30 PM Agenda 1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet 6:30 PM 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Citizen Comments 5. Project Review A. Update Review: Ryan/Target (6:35- 6:40)/ Brian Wessel B. Concept Review: Highland Meadows 3" Addition /Concept Plan /James R. Hill, Inc. (6:40 — 6:55) 6. Environmental Board Business A. Minnesota DNR/Wildland Interface Project/Updates (6:55 — 7:00) B. Native Plantings/Planning and Zoning Issues (7:00 — 7:20)/Milo Bennett Invited C. Environmental Board Goals 2001/Member Responsibilities (7:20 — 8:15) D. Environmental Board Networking/Shakopee Reps? 7. Program/Project Updates A. Environmental 1. Conservation Partners Grant (8:15 — 8:20) B. Victor Gardens, Hugo — Update (8:20 — 8:25) C. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates (8:25 — 8:30) 8. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date 8:30 PM ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : January 31, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:16 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, Dave Mach, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 3, 2001— The following corrections were requested: Page 9, sixth paragraph: "Trehus stated` that by unaininous vote the Board recommended that the tower not be built in that location. m> Page 11, first paragraph: " could be used as a model. model." 11 indited that the DNR study on greenway space that Saddle Club should correspond with the Trehus moved to appfpve the K'anuary 3, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above. •O' Connell seconded the motLon. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • The Board would not address 6B Saddle Club Update (Item 1 -02). • Comments on the meeting Chair Lanyon attended would be added on to Section 7C: Environmental Board Goals 2001. The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS No comments were made. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR/VICE CHAIR It was decided that Scott Lanyon would continue as Chair, and that Dave Mach would be the Vice Chair. Kukonen moved to approve the appointments of Chair and Vice Chair. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target Project Submittal (Item 1 -01) — Asleson explained that the green sheet was to help recall previous information relevant to present discussion. There was no green sheet given for this item, because a formal submittal had been received. Asleson read the background section of the agenda sheet item 1 -01. Several plans have been submitted including formal project submittal, a grading plan, a tree inventory and preservation/restoration plan, surface water infiltration proposals, a landscape plan, and a lighting plan. No response from the Rice Creek Watershed District has been received. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet EA ( W) still needed to be completed and the wetland mitigation area is still yet to be determined. Asleson asked for comments or recommendations from the Board. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board did` District had discussed. The tree invento specifically where the tamarac tr es wo Grundhofer asked if the si trees would be two ink di Ffi Ater. ;'recommendations the Watershed most important concern for the Board, d be planted. d been determined. Asleson answered that the Chair Lanyon note d3 hat until }fie Board had comments and or recommendations from the Watershed District the 3oard.could not make any recommendations. Asleson confirmed that no comments were received in his office from the Watershed District. Chair Lanyon pointed out that other species had encroached in the area. Asleson addressed the surface water flow, stating concerns about the efficiency of installed infiltration tubes in the low area before it leaves the site. Donlin inquired about the preparation of the area, if they were going to grade and drill. Asleson asked John Johnson if he could make some general comments about the subject. John Johnson, Civil Engineer, stated that the infiltration tubes were typically 15'x 2'x 3' and worked like a drain field in situations where there was above normal rain and below 100 year rain. The concern was that the ponds would not work as well over time, because of build up of sediment. The infiltration tubes are installed by building trenches with a backhoe, then covering them up. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 Donlin admitted that she had reservations with the tamarack plantings, if the cottonwood and the aspen were removed and the tamarack did not do well, it would be barren. She commented on the beauty of the cottonwood and aspen which were planned for removal. Asleson noted that the present state of the area was impacted, with most of the tamarack trees gone after 1967 when the highway was put in. This was an attempt to bring it closer to its original state prior to 1967. Donlin said that by removing the aspen and cottonwood 70% of the significant trees on site would be removed. She feared that if the tamarack plantings were unsuccessful, the area would remain essentially treeless. Asleson stated that the tamaracks were in a wet meadow before the highway went through. Chair Lanyon asked if the Board could make a recommendation not knowing the water impact. Mach stated that a restoration of the tamarack theme could be recommended, because aspen would probably encroach fairly quickly, and tamaracks grow more slowly than cottonwoods and aspen. Asleson noted that the Watershed District tubes. Grundhofer inquired on the lighting of the ylons, if they met the code standards. O'Connell mentioned that theme naifp erence to color in the ordinance. could probably not recommend the infiltration Asleson indicated the lights were reduce glare. g intensity in the center, but were quickly reduced to Chair Lanyon offered that Mere had not been a response to the recommendations of the Board at the January 3, 2001 meeting, and added the necessity of hearing from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Donlin agreed and asked if their responses to the recommendations would be at the next meeting, in addition to the proposed choices of vegetation. Asleson indicated that the architect had called to ask for the list of recommended plantings. Donlin urged that the plantings consist of those that would attract bird species, and have several textures and colors including prairie gardens, would soften the big box appearance. Asleson noted that there were several lists, and assured the Board that the Ryan/Target representatives would receive them. Donlin indicated that the Board members would like the lists to be sent to them by E -Mail. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 B. Saddle Club Addition (Item 1 -02) — Tabled to the February 28, 2001 meeting. C. Summit Fire Protection/Minor Subdivision /Apollo Business District (Item 1 -03) — Asleson read the background for agenda item 1 -03. The company assembles and installed sprinkler systems submitted a site plan, which was reviewed at the June 28, 200 meeting. Excavated areas were made into infiltration ponds and storm pipes feed rainwater directly into the ponds. Soil compaction was 95 %, a spec for the vegetation growth areas was requested. Options noted were to change the soil specs to reflect less than 1.7 G /cu cm. Second to require a native plant maintenance contract. Third to require a few native flowerbeds in the front which is consistent with other nearby businesses. He asked for questions or comments. Trehus asked the meaning of .134 on the infiltration worksheet. Mr. Johnson replied that it was the percentage that allowed infiltration to occur /acre. The measurement was the bottom of the infiltration basins to differentiate from grass, also to compare the volume generated to be infiltrated at a certain level. Grundhofer inquired about the proposed 22,00 square foot expansion in the future. Mr. Johnson answered that the proposed infiltration system was designed to accommodate the expansion. Asleson added the change, which had taken place since it was last reviewed, was the land two acres in the north had been approve, b Watershed District. Donlin stated that the City she ould take the Iead from North Oaks in promoting prairie g ardens. Mr. Johnson refine( tha �, idnesses want something that looks attractive. . The business owners .pretensive about the required regular burnings for prairie grasses. Donlin urged that an atennpt:be made to find a location on the property where native grasses could safely be grown. The issue was a lack of understanding. Chair Lanyon agreed adding that it was an educational process. Mr. Johnson indicated that it was not appealing because there were no examples of mature gardens. He explained what was needed was specific examples of native grasses nearby that the business representatives could see and learn from. He added that there was fear of managing infestation like purple loosestrife. O'Connell responded that the ADC in Shakopee has an entryway that was entirely native, and that it was well established. Johnson indicated that they needed to see the difference between native grasses and an untended meadow. Chair Lanyon suggested that business owners be invited to established sites to see the plantings and ask maintenance questions. As to the ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 recommendations, the Board concurred with staff in promoting native vegetation, along with the standard recommendations. Mr. Dalbee, Project Designer for Ryan Companies US, Inc., indicated that an environmental architect had been hired. Donlin complimented the use of premium cut off lamps because it was a good choice to reduce glare, and suggested to staff that the information about these lamps be given to Target. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board approved the project. D. VFW Post 6583 /Apollo Drive (Item 1 -04) — Asleson read the background sheet. The VFW wishes to sell 1.5 acres and have the area surveyed. Staff recommends that the elderberries on the bank's property be extended to Lake Drive, and that the Board should approve the request to sell and survey the VFW land. He asked for comments. O'Connell asked for a clarification who the buyers would be Asleson answered a dental group, and that it was zoned commercial. Donlin inquired about the access road. Asleson indicated it would be on the regional road Apollo Drive. Chair Lanyon questioned if the property had any relevance to the greenway. Asleson answered the woodland in tee eastern part was threatened. No additional recomtn unanimously. nom the Board were stated. The project was approved E. 12th and Holly Drive /Subdivision Application Review (Item 1 -05) — The background for agenda Item 1 -05 was read by Asleson. The area on the northern side had been impacted, and shows no evidence of rare or unique species. Staff visited the site and made recommendations. Asleson asked for any new recommendations. Grundhofer suggested shortening the road and removing Lot 5. Donlin stated that with the possibility of rich fen on the site, there should be no grading. In the past, the area was a wetland, a bog type landscape, and quite wet. Asleson noted that he went to look at the site, it had been heavily impacted, and ditched in the west. Chair Lanyon asked what recourse the Board had to respond to the delineation of the project plan, and if there was disagreement, could it be recommended that the report be repeated. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 Donlin indicated there is bias when a company hires another company to report findings. Asleson continued that it had been impacted. Chair Lanyon mentioned that there was a difference between the wetland delineation of 20 years ago and that of today in the vegetation. Mach pointed out that there was no plan for restoration, and submitted the possibility the Board not approve. Donlin agreed in light of the ditches and the past projects the company has worked on, they have not fulfilled the obligations of those projects. Chair Lanyon explained that the Board was concerned about those previously unfulfilled obligations. Mach indicated that the goal should be to raise the environmental quality of the parcel, which would ultimately increase the value." Chair Lanyon advised the applicable information should be reissued, because even if the area was degraded, it may not take much to restore the area to increase its value. Asleson identified the parcel was the same size as ,Peregrine Pass at 80 acres, where the streets were narrowed, retention ponds added.. With�;to conservation ordinance on the books, there seems to be no way to implement the same procedure with 12th and Holly. Trehus noted the plat map had been modifed, and Smyser's report stated concerns over multiple driveways that connects 12thtreet or Holly Drive. He explained that there should be no driveways on arter l roads, because traffic congestion was an environmental issue. Chair Lanyon submitted that other groups would follow this example, Lots 1 and 8 with a driveway going onto 12th „'Street should be removed to retain open space. Donlin stated that Smyser again supports it with the statement, "When 5 to 7 of the 14 lots don't meet the standards...” Grundhofer reviewed the recommendations to reduce the number of lots, which were not attempted, but merely changed the street position. The present proposal threatens the potential fen site. She then asked if the person in the existing house was developing the property. Chair Lanyon stated that the proposal was a step backwards in terms of efforts promoting green developments. E. Apitz/Birch/Hodgeson (Item 1 -06) — Mr. Goertz stated that the area in the west was in the greenway corridor so the configurations had been changed, although the same maps 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 were used as in the concept plan. Asleson clarified general comments were wanted for a future concept plan. Grundhofer asked if there was a garage located in the white space. Mr. Goertz explained that the proposal was to subdivide the area leaving the piece for the farm. The house on the corner was working with the county. Grundhofer inquired about the split of 3.98 acres from the rest of the property set aside for future development. Mr. Goertz responded that there was a renter living in the house. The owner wanted to continue renting to them. Chair Lanyon stated the concern was for the greenways, and the needed buffers near the wetlands. An increase in open spaces and connections with the greenspaces were key. He urged them to work with the Greenway Project, that it, would be beneficial. Mr. Goertz explained that the owner's association would own the land and a landscape committee would decide future changes. Kukonen indicated that a standard buffer would be required around a wetland. Asleson agreed that a buffer was needed with the greenway. The bridge on Highway 49 would make a walkway. The soils in the area were found to be Isanti wet, which was sandy with water down about 18 inches, and supports canary grass. Mr. Goertz stated that theyxhad talked to the Watershed District, and those areas were avoided. The ditch was dug %ems ago. The project has been in probate for five years. The townhouses were in the $2 000 and over price range. Mach stated that he was impressed with the amount of land that was to remain untouched. Mr. Goertz explained that about 30% of the land was to remain untouched, with 70 units on 40.5 acres. There were plans for the association to control the use, and staff had recommended a conservation easement. Asleson agreed that a conservation easement was needed to preserve the buffer, so that it would not be seen as unnecessary and mowed down. Chair Lanyon stated that there had been no discussion of landscaping, and the Board recommends native plantings. Asleson concurred and suggested that a management plan be drawn up for the undeveloped areas. Chair Lanyon pointed out that it takes creative design, but buildings could be closer together to give larger views. Mr. Goertz responded that the configurations were designed to break up the impression of a line of garages. He explained that in Roseville the pads were 32 feet by 80 feet, but here they would be 40 feet by 80 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 Mach stated that it appeared to be an attractive place to live, and they could charge more for the lots. Grundhofer noted that a new road would be created off of Highway 49, and inquired about the median. Mr. Goertz answered that they have been working with the County concerning the median. Trehus questioned the location of the greenway in the Comprehensive Plan, was there supposed to be an area zoned commercial. Mr. Goertz responded that in the northeast there would be an outlot. Asleson asked for comments and recommendations on the green sheet. Chair Lanyon stated the general set of guidelines. Mr. Goertz stated that he had the information, and would work on it. Donlin noted that lighting was also important. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Minnesota DNR/Wildland Interface Project/Updates — Asleson stated that there was a meeting the day before. It was noted t "�" ,141,1go app "arred to be ahead of Lino Lakes in both the formations of Zoning Ordinance an 'Conservation Ordinance. A base map for three- fourths of the City had bee completed. Ms. Sand had several pages of issues, however there were no writ en comments:`A wildlife survey had been completed. There was a discussion that the Co APlan and Zoning information for the City was better than average. I was noted that when staff receives written comments, they would be forwarded in March or April. The Metro Greenway Plan was submitted with the Watershed District. concerning 12,000 acres. There was $2,600 budgeted to 2002, with the work needing to bedone,from January to June. The inventory will be done for the entire City, because the oil Conservation District can go on private property without landowner consent, so there will be a pretty high level of classification. Donlin asked if the information would also be obtained through GIS. Asleson answered that the high level of classification will be available through Metropolitan Council's 2000 photography. Mr. Husveth was contracted through the State to do the inventory. B. Development Concerns/Birch Street and Centerville Road — Asleson stated that there were no plans to do anything on that corner. Donlin inquired about the plans for the trees in the area, it appeared that they were being removed. Asleson replied that things were happening, but there were no plans for development. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 C. Environmental Board Goals 2001— Chair Lanyon stated that the Board should be proactive, not reactive. He explained many times the project review takes considerable time, but if it could be reduced, it would leave more time for environmental education. Trehus asked if there were other cities with checklists of the criteria. Asleson stated with the timelines, the Board could be more proactive. Chair Lanyon suggested to have specified roles for each person, then the specified person comments on that subject for every project review. O'Connell agreed and added if another has comments on that topic they could be E- Mailed to the designated person. Trehus asked if they were to pick tonight from a list of categories. Asleson stated it should focus on the review process. Chair Lanyon agreed to make the process more effective. There were nine points on the guidelines, so each person should pick two points. Mach mentioned that through the specialization, the Board could educate itself by sharing what each is learning. Trehus noted it would be beneficial to inquire what other cities were doing. Asleson indicated he could bring inforrnation on what other cities are doing to the Board, and mentioned that Blaine was putting together an Environmental Board. Lanyon added that it would be beneficial to get people from other cities together and informally discuss issues. O'Connell noted that the to Environmental Boari went on none of the cities represented had an Chair Lanyon suggested that the goals needed to be prioritized, to streamline the review process. Donlin pointed out #3. Grundhofer identified #2. Chair Lanyon urged the Board to choose a different goal because #2 would be too nebulous; it needed to be identifiable. O'Connell stated part of #1, specifically to continue with the City Council with the property adjacent to the elementary school, find a way to protect and celebrate the area in 2001. Chair Lanyon indicated that there should be 3 -4 specific goals, not necessarily written, as the 2000 goals were to be used as guiding principles. Asleson mentioned that a website could be created as an ongoing educational aide. Chair Lanyon suggested an agenda item for next time to build a list of goals. Mach pointed out that a pilot site should be built for a local example to show developers. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 Asleson responded that several already existed. Chair Lanyon asked if those sites were established, mature plantings. Mach asked if the Board was encouraging the use of cultivars. Asleson answered that cultivars were not against the recommendations. Kukonen noted that the Sawmill Golf Course had some nice plantings, and there was a video available that could be shown to developers as a good example. Chair Lanyon indicated that the Board needed to streamline the meetings, and partnership with other towns. Mach stated community education should be a goal, not just for developers. Trehus submitted there needed to be a focus on community where a pilot restoration project could be showcased on Earth Day, and advertise for it Chair Lanyon submitted that because Earth Day was early in the growing season, a poster board of pictures could be compiled. Chair Lanyon asked what Wargo had done. Donlin responded they had plantings 3 years old. Asleson added that a local artis Donlin mentioned a site owr may be willing to give toffs, Chair Lanyon noted €there were seven issues: 1. Develop an ongoig website to possibly be updated by the High School. 2. To preserve o area adjacent to the elementary school on the north side. 3. Environmental staff support. 4. Network with other communities. 5. Develop a pilot restoration project. 6. Community education. 7. Greenspace Development Ordinance: inside and outside MUSA both in terms of adoption and implementation. ade interpretive signs that were well done. Angstrom who was proud of his prairie, and that he stated that it should be updated by April 1, 2001. Chair Lanyon explained that the developers needed to see it and talk to the person who maintained it. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 Donlin suggested that the City allow prairie restoration companies to advertise with brochures in City Hall. Asleson agreed and noted that a local artist could take the City Hall area and depict it through the stages. Chair Lanyon stated that steps to attain the goals should be on the next meeting agenda. Kukonen mentioned that a development ordinance could be developed using copies from North Branch and Lake Elmo. Trehus concurred that there were seven to eight cities with development ordinances already, and one could be compiled from those. Chair Lanyon noted that there were seven goals, and some needed to be accomplished within a year, while others were ongoing. Donlin submitted that was a plan for no net loss of wetlands, but it should be extended to include prairie and woodlands as well. Trehus indicated the need for more environmental support staff. Chair Lanyon identified the need for more regular communication with the City Council. He stated that he would try to get the language clear by the next meeting. Time was a factor, so there was a need to stay focused. O'Connell noted that February 14, 2001 ,there wasrtn project hearing for Target, and inquired if a representative of the Environmental Board should be present. Chair Lanyon urged that comments needed to be considered if in terms of a private citizen or a representative of the Environmental Board. 4 Trehus asked for the Ci PROGRAM / PROJECT UPDATES inutes in the packets for follow -up purposes. A. Environmental 1. Aqua -Force Research Project — Asleson described a cap program at the graduate research level, that was studying the water quality of ponds, buffers, and the possibility of new beneficial bacteria. The student needs a place to work, but the help would be free of charge. The beneficial bacteria were to be obtained from the sludge ponds at Pig's Eye. Donlin indicated a concern with salts and the impact that they have in retention ponds. Chair Lanyon noted the infiltration of salts might accumulate as build up. Asleson explained the salts were water soluble, so they are dissolved. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 Chair Lanyon submitted that the concentration of salts might be reduced quickly, but we do not see the effect. Asleson responded that ponds were biofilters, if stressors were introduced into the system the life would be affected. B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item was tabled to the February 27, 2001 meeting. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on February 28, 2001. There being no further business, Kukonen moved to adjourn at 9:16 p.m. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Secretarial, Inc. 12 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL Agenda Item 5A PROJECT #: 2000 -1c... PROJECT: NE /Quad/DelwoodLLC DATE OF ORIGIN: 11/21/00 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: • Discussions of this area started in May of 1998. Records attached. • Site Proposal includes large retail and several smaller retail stores. There have been several meetings with the project representatives. • General overview to be given by Brian Wessel STAFF COMMENTS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: Surface water treatment imperative Information from the Environmental Inventory, specific site inventory and recommendations from AES, Tree Inventory from previous development proposal, as well as specific modals on surface water treatment, and information on structural soil use has been given to the developers. • Streetscape design and alternative transportation access need to be effective. Very expensive commercial property Developer has hired a reputable environmental consultant as part of their team. Attraction of "Green Industry" Greenway design HapKa &_PexpcarlovBoapB 'On oq$ Alvo Aaxs6 Environmental Issues: The following identifies potential impacts to Environment. • large impervious surface/Lake water quality impact concerns. Oak- woodland to south and miscellaneous recently developed tree areas to north. Several prairie and savanna areas previously identified by AES on freeway side. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES: Refer to the following references for information that may affect discussions related to this issue. Section 2 - Assessment of Needs • Completed by Brauer AES and presently being studied by consultants. Section 3 - Governing Polices •Creating a sustainable landscape requires a broader view that starts with the big picture or vision and moves into a physical plan and set of action steps to achieve that vision. The 20/20 Vision Plan established the philosophical vision for the community that was the starting point for this study. Public response to the study clearly reiterates the ideals defined in the 20/20 plan, which are as follows: "Sustenance of the natural environment of Lino Lakes through the protection and management of the wildlife, habitats, and other natural resources, and to pass on to future residents a community rich in these resources. Future development is to include equal consideration o - economic development and environmental protection". Section 5 - Administration • Adopt a conservation development approach to planning as the working model for community development. Example was established with the construction of the Civic Complex. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the January 31, 2001 Environmental Board: Staff Update: No representatives from Ryan/Target present. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: The following reached by the Board: •Greensheet attached from January 31, 2001 Environmental Board Meeting. •No further comments at this time pending a Watershed Report. consensus was Ilapar &_Pe peartov_Boapo Xtri_og Aivo Aaxea you on anything new.l •UPDATE February 28, 2001 Environmental Board Update 21- lc/February 28, 2001 • I have attached the Draft EAW and photos depicting some of the issues. I have also included some of my initial Ieaction to the draft EAW. There is no further information at this time. Brian Wessel will be present to update' DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION DATE: .... pending .... PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations related to actual implementation. This includes issues raised (and resolved) during implementation, general observations, and project outcome. 1.... pending .... PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: .... pending ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date Hapx6 &_Pexpeazaov_BoapS Xtzt of Aevo Aaxs6 TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT Lino Lakes, Minnesota DRAFT-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Prepared for City of Lino Lakes By SITE WORKS STUDIO PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • Ds Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Feburary 1, 2001 1. Project Title: Lino Lakes Town Center Development 2. Proposer: Ryan Companies, US Inc. Contact Person: Thomas Palmquist Address: 700 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 -3387 3. RGU: City of Lino Lakes Contact Person: Mr. Jeff Smyser City Planner Address: 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 —1182 Phone: 651- 982 -2425 Fax: 651- 982 -2499 e -mail: jsmyser @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: Mandatory EAW If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category number(s): 4410.4300, Subp. 14. B. Construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility, other than a warehousing or light industrial facility, equal to or in excess of the following thresholds, expressed as gross floor space: third or fourth class facility, 200,000 square feet. 5. Project Location: S 1/2 of S4 1/4 Section 8, T 31 N R 22 W County: Anoka City: Lino Lakes Attach copies of the following to the EAW: a. county map showing the general location of the project (Figure 1). b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries (Figure 2). c. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features (Figure 3) PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 1 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 FIGURE 1 by PTG PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 2 Town Center Development Draft-Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 FIGURE 2 by PTG PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Aschman • De Leuw, Cether, - Steinman Page 3 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 FIGURE 3 by PTG PARSONS TFIANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Lenw, Lather, • Steinman Page 4 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 6. Description: Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary). Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Ryan Companies, US Inc. is proposing to develop a retail center in the City of Lino Lakes. The development is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The development will replace approximately 40.15 acres of undeveloped land with 332,958 square feet of retail buildings with associated parking areas, including the following: SuperTarget 182,760 square feet Other Flexable Space Retail 150,918 square feet Including all buildings, parking, and roads, the total amount of impervious surface after development is expected to be 28.78 acres. Initial site work and construction is expected to begin June 2001, with the grand opening of the proposed SuperTarget Store scheduled for July 2002. Remaining parcels are expected to be developed by the end of 2005. Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for EQB use in the EQB Monitor notice: The project consists of a retail center in the City of Lino Lakes located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The existing undeveloped land will be replaced with 332,958 square feet of retail buildings. 7. Project Magnitude Data: Total Project Area: 40.15 acres Number of Residential Units: unattached 0 attached 0 Commercial /Industrial/Institutional building area (gross floor space): 332,958 sq. ft. Total Square Feet: 332,958 Indicate area of specific uses: Office 0 Manufacturing 0 Retail 332,958 square feet Other Industrial 0 Warehouse 0 Institutional 0 Light Industrial 0 Agricultural 0 PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aachman • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 5 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 Other Commercial (specify) Building Heights: The one -story retail buildings will be approximately 20 to 35 feet tall. 8. Permits and Approvals Required: List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required: Unit of Government Type of Permit/Approval Status US Army Corps of Section 404 Permit To be applied for Engineers Rice Creek Watershed Plan Approval Pending District Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Indirect Source Permit To be applied for, dependent upon commitment to road improvements. MPCA NPDES to be applied for MPCA Construction Stormwater to be applied for Permit Anoka County County Road Access To be applied for City of Lino Lakes Environmental Assessment Pending Worksheet City of Lino Lakes Rezoning to be applied for City of Lino Lakes Sanitary Sewer Connection to be applied for Permit City of Lino Lakes Watershed Permit to be applied for City of Lino Lakes Water Tapping Permit to be applied for City of Lino Lakes Water Inspection Permit to be applied for City of Lino Lakes Fire Protection System to be applied for Flushing Permit City of Lino Lakes Building Permits to be applied for City of Lino Lakes Platting to be applied for City of Lino Lakes Site Plan Review to be applied for 9. Land Use: Describe the current and most recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks. PARSONS Page 6 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aachman • De Leuw, Cather, • Steinman Current Land Use: The site is undeveloped. Adjacent Land Uses: To the south of the site is Interstate 35W. Residential housing is located at the northern edge of the site along 77th Street. Adjacent and northeast of the site is a large area designated as "Greenway ". West of the site is a commercial area fronting Lake Drive that is zoned "General and Neighborhood Business ". Project compatibility with adjacent land uses: Surrounding zoning is as follows: • Abutting to the East and North — R — Rural • Abutting to the South — SC — Shopping Center and LB — Light Business • Abutting to the West — NB — Neighborhood Business and LB — Light Business Commercial — CA — Central Area The existing property is zoned SC — Shopping Center. The SC zoning district meets the developments intended usage. The overall building architecture will be oriented toward some of the features already used to the south in the Village Center development as well as new features that will complement the site and provide screening and buffering to the rural neighborhoods to the north and west of the property. • Environmental hazards from past land uses: None identified. 10. Cover Types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before and after totals should be equal): Note: Total do not equal because of revegetation and plantings. 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources: PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton •Aschmen • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 7 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 Before (acres) After (acres) Types 2 to 8 Wetland 4.88 1.24 Wooded/Forest 5.62 3.99 Brush/Grassland 32.3 1.85 Cropland 0 0 Urban/Suburban Lawn Landscaping 0 2.51 Gravel Parking Lots 0 0 Impervious Surfaces (including structures) 0 28.78 Other (Ponding) 0 2.82 Total 42.8 41.19 Note: Total do not equal because of revegetation and plantings. 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources: PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton •Aschmen • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 7 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Pending DNR review. b. Are there any state listed endangered, threatened, or special- concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near this site? If yes, describe the resources and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources was conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Minnesota Natural Heritage database to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the project site. Pending. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources: Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? If yes, identify the water resources to be affected and describe: The alteration, including construction process; volumes of dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation. PTG to finalize with city A preliminary investigation by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. has identified two wetlands on the site. The delineation is preliminary because it was conducted outside the normal growing season. The investigation identified a total of 4.87 acres of wetland on the property. One of the wetland basins is 3.63 acres and one is 1.24 acres. All of the 3.63 acre basin will be impacted by grading activities and by converting it to a site bio- retention basin. The applicant is pursuing an off-site wetland mitigation site or an existing wetland bank to be debited for the project. Off-site Mitigation needs to be PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Sarton•Aschman • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 8 Town Center Development Draft-Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 13. Water Use a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? NO ? ?? For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermited wells, give the location and the purpose of the well and the unique well number (if known). Not applicable. b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels. The installation of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermains may require some amount of spot or isolated dewatering in order to install the underground systems. It is unknown at this time the extent of this minor and short durational need. c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? Yes. If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used. The new development will connect to the City of Lino Lakes public water supply: DNR Permit # City to provide. 14. Water - related Land -Use Management Districts: Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state of federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? If yes, identify the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district. The project does have a small area near a culvert on the south property line within the 100 -year flood plain of George Watch Lake. The elevation of the 100 -year flood plain PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Lauw, Lather, • Steinman Page 9 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 estimated by City of Lino Lakes to be 886.00 MSL with an ordinary high water elevation of 885.5 to 884.0 MSL. 15. Water Surface Use: Will the project change the number or type of water craft on any water body? If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife resources. Not Applicable. 16. Soils: Approximate depth (in feet) to: minimum average Ground Water 2 feet 15 -20 feet Bedrock N/A N/A Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.) Soils on site include primarily 4 -5 layers of silty sand (SM) and sand with silt (SP -SM). Geotechnical exploration was conducted by American Engineering and Testing. Report to be attach. See Appendix 17. Erosion and Sedimentation: Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: PTG has Emailed Larry Rogers at Ryan to verify earthwork quantities. acres: 41.82 cubic yards: 170,000 Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project. There are no steep slopes on this site. Because the project will involve disturbance of more than five acres of land, application for coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities will be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and prior to initiating earthwork on the site. The permit requires that best management practices (BMPs) be used to control erosion and that all erosion controls be inspected after each rainfall exceeding 0.1 inch of precipitation. Erosion control practices to be used on the site will include: PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Berton•Aschman • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 10 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for stormwater ponds, and development of these basins for permanent use following construction. 2. Silt fence installed at the construction limits prior to the initiation of earth work and maintained until all exposed soil is stabilized. 3. Installation of a rock construction entrance. 4. Periodic cleaning of adjacent city streets. 5. Energy dissipation, such as rip -rap, installed at storm sewer outfalls. 6. Use of cover crops, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after final grading. All erosion control plans will be reviewed by the City of Lino Lakes. Because the above BMPs will be implemented, the potential for adverse affects from construction- related sediment and erosion on water quality will be minimized to the extent practical. 18. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff: a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and / or treat runoff. The existing site soil regime is of naturally high infiltration media. Drainage calculations for the predevelopment 100 -year flood event computed a total site runoff of only 1.54 cfs. Post - development runoff rates will be maintained at the pre - development rates by the addition of two ponds and a bioretention basin. One pond, located on the northeast corner of the site, will capture water from the roofs of the SuperTarget and the three major retail buildings west of Apollo Drive. This pond will also collect water from the parking areas and drive isles in this area. The pond will have a National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) volume of 5.26 acre -feet and a wet storage capacity of 6.12 acre -feet. It will discharge to the bio- retention basin at a maximum rate of 2.88 cubic feet per second. The other pond, centrally located on the southern property boundary, will capture runoff from Apollo Drive and the parking lot area west of Apollo Drive. This pond will have an NURP volume of 1.64 acre -feet and a wet storage capacity of 2.12 acre -feet. It will discharge to the bio- retention basin at a maximum rate of 10.32 cubic feet per second. The bio- retention basin, located in the southeastern corner of the site, is an existing wetland. The basin development will include 40 vertical infiltration tubes, a berm, landscaping, and a 6 inch diameter pipe discharging to the I35W Right of Way. The basin will have a dry storage volume of 4.7 acre - feet, and a peak discharge of 1.72 cubic feet per second. b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Leuw, Cattier, • Steinman Page 11 Town Center Development Draft-Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 runoff may affect a lake consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.) Runoff from the proposed development currently drains to the north side of the I -35W drainage ditch. A culvert under I -35W starts at the southeastern corner of the site and carries storm water runoff south to a shallow creek and ultimately discharges to George Watch Lake. After the site is redeveloped, storm water will be routed through on -site storm water ponds designed to meet NURP (Nationwide Urban Runoff Program), city of Lino Lakes, and Rice Creek Watershed District criteria. Storm water rate control and treatment will occur prior to any water being discharged into the George Watch Lake. PTG has Contacted MPCA, Kevin Kain 651 296 -7432 to determine if nutrient budget analysis is required. Pending. 19. Water Quality Waste Waters: a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial waste water produced or treated at the site. Only normal domestic sewage will be generated by the retail activity. b. Describe any waste treatment methods to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or if the project involves on -site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters (including ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether a nutrient budget analysis is needed.) Not applicable. c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identify and improvements which will be necessary. It has been determined that sanitary sewer flow generated by the development will not exceed available capacity of the City of Lino Lakes sanitary sewer system. City to verify 20. Ground Water - Potential for Contamination: a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: minimum average 2 feet 15 -20 feet PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton - Rachman • De Lam, Cattier, • Steinman Page 12 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations /karst conditions, soils with high infiltration rates, abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to and of these hazards. The final site will largely be covered with buildings and parking surface, with storm water being directed to retention ponds and a bio- filtration basin. Infiltration will therefore be less than under existing conditions. c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. No toxic or hazardous materials are expected to be used or present as part of the retail activities of the project. Some toxic materials will be sold through the retail businesses and approved methods of handling and storage of these materials are required. 21. Solid Waste: Hazardous Wastes: Storage Tanks: a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manure, sludge and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be a source separation plan, list types (s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling. Only municipal solid waste (MSW) will be generated by the retail activity. Any recycling will be undertaken by individual tenants of the development. Target has an aggressive program to reduce waste and promote recycling. The store will have one 42 cubic yard internally loaded compactor and a corrugated materials baler for paper recycling. The store is expected to generate 32,000 — 64,000 lbs. of trash per month and 18,000 lbs. of recyclable corrugated material per week. Method of disposal to be provided by City? Or Contracted ? ?? City provide answer There are no municipal solid waste landfills operating in Anoka County, thus the location of a disposal facility is in . City provide Solid waste and recycling will be with the Anoka County Integrated Waste Management services. b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products or other materials (except water). None. 22. Traffic: PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Leuw, Gather, • Steinman Page 13 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 Parking spaces added: 1,632 Proof of Parking spaces added: 31 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): Not applicable. Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated: 15,213 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: 1,161 (4:30 - 5:30pm) For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project: See Appendix C, Traffic Analysis Report prepared by TKDA. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements that will be necessary. The "Traffic Analysis Report" presented the following conclusions and recommendation prior to the project opening: Installation of Traffic Signals at the following intersections: • Lake Drive /Main Street • Lake Drive /Apollo Drive • Lake Drive/I -35W Southbound Ramps • Lake Drive/I -35W Northbound Ramps • Lake Drive /Project Access Road • Lake Drive /Town Center Parkway Other recommended improvements are: • Minor road widening at Lake Drive /Town Center Parkway to accommodate a dedicated southbound turn lane. • Road widening at Lake Drive/I -35W southbound ramps to accommodate a dedicated northbound turn lane. • Road widening at Lake Drive/I -35W northbound ramps to accommodate a dedicated southbound turn lane. • Prohibition of left turns and through movements from east and westbound 77th Street. 23. Vehicle related air emissions: Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (If project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult "EAW Guidelines" about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.) PARSONS TRANSPORTATION OROUP Sarton•Aschman • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 14 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 An air quality analysis was conducted for the indirect source permit application. The analysis was conducted using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved models to assess impacts from carbon monoxide (CO) emissions generated by traffic one year after completion of the proposed project. Results of the air quality analysis indicate that after the project is completed, state CO standards will continue to be maintained. The maximum predicted 1- and 8 -hour average CO impacts, including monitored background concentrations, are parts per million (ppm) and ppm, respectively. Further details can be found in Appendix D, the air quality analysis from the Indirect Source Permit application cited above. Report pending. To be provided by PTG 24. Stationary Source Air Emissions: Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (Such as boilers or exhaust stacks)? Stationary sources of air emissions will include only natural gas space heaters. The emissions from these units will not have a significant impact on the ambient air quality. 25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and /or operation? If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors. Dust During construction, particular emissions will temporarily increase due to the generation of fugitive dust. The following dust control measures will be undertaken as necessary: 1. Minimize the period and extent of areas being exposed and regarded at any one time. 2. Spraying construction areas and all roads with water, especially during periods of high wind or high levels of construction activity. 3. Minimize the use of vehicles on unpaved surfaces. Odors Covering or spraying material piles and /or truck loads. The project has the potential to generate noise from four types of sources: • construction activities, • additional traffic generated by the project, • loading dock operations, and • roof -top fans. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Aschmen • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 15 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 Noise Noise impacts from construction of the project may exceed the state noise standards for a limited period of time. Every effort will be made to reduce construction noise by ensuring that all equipment has proper noise reduction devices. In addition, construction activities will occur only during daytime hours. The principal source of noise for the project is additional traffic along roadways surrounding the development. The potential impact of this traffic noise was evaluated as part of the Indirect Source Permit application (Appendix D) required for this project. (pending to be provided by PTG) The evaluation shows that the post - development noise levels at the sensitive receptors will be in compliance with State standards. 26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site: a. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? Pending SHIPO Appendix E. PTG sent Letter waiting on response b. Prime or unique farmlands? No. c. Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? Trails - Yes d. Scenic views and vistas? No. e. Other unique resources? Yes. If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Chain of Lakes Regional Park is located on the opposite side of Interstate 35W from the site. Because of the Interstate 35W separation, impact on park activities will not be significant. Mitigation of potential surface water impacts are discussed in Item 18. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton- Aschman • De Lauer, Cather, • Steinman Page 16 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 A City ordinance defines a significant tree as any hardwood deciduous tree 6 inch caliper or greater, any softwood deciduous tree of 8 inch caliper or greater, and any coniferous tree of 12 feet height or greater. A tree survey of the site logged 752 trees, with 566 defined as "significant" by ordinance. The proposed grading activities will require removal of 437 significant trees. An additional 21 "significant" Aspen and Cottonwood will be removed per the City request to remove all Aspen and Cottonwood from the site. The proposed landscaping plan specifies 109 Tamarack trees will be planted in the northwest and southeast portion of the site, surrounding and in the bio- retention basin. Additionally, the perimeter of the property is lined with a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. Landscaping will be incorporated throughout the site, with the plant pallet consisting largely of plant materials that are unique to Minnesota and more native to Lino Lakes. The location of Blue Heron habitat within the Chain of Lakes Regional Park contains a rookery with reported flights in vicinity of the site. Per conversation with John VonDelinde, Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department, it is believed that the Blue Heron rookery relocated to an unknown area due to construction noise related to the reconstruction of I -35W in the spring and summer of 1999 and 2000. 27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts ?(Examples include: glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas, and large visible plums from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) All building and parking lot lighting will have downcast recessed or boxed lighting fixtures that will not cause glare to the adjacent residential areas. No cooling towers are planned for this project. Exhaust stacks will be limited to small stacks from natural gas space heaters. 28. Compatibility with plans: Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state, or federal agency? Yes. City may wish to elaborate If yes, identify the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain. The proposed project is located on property the City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan (Adopted 1998) Development Framework has designated for commercial land use with a Shopping Center zoning classification (City of Lino Lake, Ordinance No. 9 -97, Adopted July 14, 1997). Areas immediately northeast of the site are classified as "Greenway ", and property west of the site that abutts Lake Drive are zoned as General and Neighborhood Businesses. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton - Aschman • De Leuw, Lather, • Steinman Page 17 Town Center Development Draft-Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 29. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services: Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure / services needed. (Any infrastructure that is a "connected action" with respect to the project must be assessed in this "EAW "; see "EAW Guidelines" for details.) Water and sanitary sewer are available at the site. Traffic signal and roadway improvements will be necessary. See item 22. 30. Related Developments: Cumulative Impacts: City may wish to elaborate Village Development ?,,,JADT ?..... a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? No. b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? No. c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? Yes. d. If a, b, or c, were marked yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting for this project and the other development. 31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts: If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed by items 1 through 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. None identified at this time. 32. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: (This section need not be completed if the "EAW" is being done for "EIS" scoping; instead , address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the "EAW ".) List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or maybe considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. City may wish to elaborate. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschmaa • De Lem, Lather, • Steinman Page 18 Town Center Development Draft -Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 The environmental issues related to this project are primarily related to surface water issues and the traffic generated by the development. The increase in traffic is proposed to be accommodated with new traffic signals, stop signs, and the modification of existing traffic signals. The Indirect Source Permit Application for the project has been submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and includes these additions and modifications. Surface water impacts are mitigated by the addition of two retention ponds and a bio- filtration basin. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP Barton•Aschman • De Lem, Lather, • Steinman. Page 19 Town Center Development Draft-Draft EAW....February 1, 2001 AGENDA ITEM 1 -01 STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: January 31, 2001 TOPIC: Ryan/Target Project/Update 2001 -1b BACKGROUND: The Environmental Board reviewed the project concept for Ryan/Target at the last two Environmental Board Meetings under the title of DellwoodLLC. Please find attached the project- tracking sheet. Please find enclosed the formal project submittal documents for Ryan /Target. The proposal dated January 16, 2001 was submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed District on January 18, 2001. We have received no written response from the Rice Creek Watershed concerning the plan submittal. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will need to be completed for this project. Please see Environmental Assessment Worksheet enclosed. The Permitting Process sheet submitted by the developer targets the draft EAW on 1/26/01. The EAW process itself takes much longer. See enclosed review timetable. A grading plan has been submitted. A tree inventory and preservation /restoration plan is enclosed. Please refer to enclosed project narrative. The sentence that the "City has requested" to the "City has suggested" that the remaining aspen and cottonwoods be removed from the site. The suggestion was made in order to facilitate the proposal to restore a Tamarack area to Tamarack species. The cottonwood /aspen encroached into the area after the 1960's highway construction destroyed the Tamaracks that had adapted to the site. Tamaracks are intolerant shade competition and best management would be to recreate the Tamarack prototype without the competition. Surface water infiltration proposals are indicated on the plan. The developer has been encouraged to be as creative as possible in keeping water on the site. The Rice Creek Watershed District will need to respond to the plan Landscape plan has been submitted and includes the proposal to use structural soils, tree planting around site, native grasses and forbs around drainage areas, and a proposal to restore the presently impacted Tamarack area with 109 Tamaracks. A lighting plan has been submitted. The lighting plan indicates conformance with the City code. The light does not exceed 1 foot - candle at the centerline of adjacent streets nor does it exceed .4 foot - candles on adjacent lots. Wetland mitigation area is yet to be determined. Preliminary wetland delineation completed. Must be substantiated in the spring. Data forms indicate that there are no significant ground -story vegetation types, and a few remnant Tamarack tree species. Neighborhood Meeting held and survey completed. Two sign pylons proposed. The pylons are located on 35W frontage and at the south side of entry from Lake Drive. Dimensions: 35' by 16', H/O florescent lighting. Several recommendations were made at the December (January 3) meeting. • One recommendation was to reduce the building sizes. The developer reduced the size of the buildings on the south side of the development. • Building locations were not moved. • Pond modification was not changed. This very well could affect the plant materials that will grow on the site. Bio- retention ponds of similar slope on the Civic Complex site appear to support some mesic species in the bounce area of the ponds. Generally these ponds fill after a major rain event and are almost empty after a week of time. Buildings were not relocated. • Lighting appears to be contained to the site. • Grouping of plant materials in this type of parking situation becomes difficult. There is an attempt to break up the linear effect of plantings in the main island in front of Target. Environmental RECOMMENDATION: Staff; Surface water management/wetland mitigation needs to be resolved. Staff stays with the recommendation that wetland mitigation be addressed in the immediate area. Carefully review the EAW when completed. Environmental Board; Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 98 - RESOLUTION WHEREAS, AND WHEREAS, ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this xxth day of xxxxxxx, 1998. Kimberly A. Sullivan, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk- Treasurer The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a correct copy of a resolution duly passed, adopted and approved by the City Council on date. Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk- Treasurer Memorandum To: Jeff Smyser From: Marty Asleson Date: 02/21/01 Re: EAW Town Center #18 &19. Parsons refer to rate control and treatment of storm water. Are there any specific treatments the writer is referring to? It is believed that increased water volume discharges can also be an impact. Sodium Chloride applied to parking lots may be an impact. Certainly higher concentrations of sodium chloride can have stressing effects on an ecosystem that has already been stressed in the past. There are other deicers that have been used as a replacement to sodium chloride. Has this been investigated? Increased salt can lead to stratification of small lakes and hindering lake turnover. Mobile sodium and chloride ions can readily reach ground water and concentration levels can temporarily increase during low -flow spring - thaws. Annual phosphorous loads from a one acre parking lot is about 2 lbs. /acre /year as compared to .5 lbs. /acre /year for a natural meadow area. Annual nitrogen load is about 15.4 lbs. /acre /year, as compared to about 2lbs /acre /year for a natural meadow area. Phosphorus is the limiting element for plant growth in lake systems. Frequent sweeping can help remove the impacts of impervious to water quality. #26. Although the Herons did indeed relocate last year, it is an6ticipated that the birds may return to this very rare and historic nesting area. Flight patterns observed by Hawkins do not appear to be affected by the location of this project. Memorandum TO: Mayor Bergeson and City Council Members FROM: John Powell, City Engineer DATE: February 23, 2001 RE: Utility Rate Information Attached is a table showing the City's utility rate information dating back to 1993. The rates shown under 2001, 2002, and 2002 are proposed and the water rate shown is up to 30,000 gallons' per quarter; the proposed rate for the quantity used over 30,000 gallons is $2.07 per 1,000 gallons. The future MCES information shown was obtained from their website and is subject to change. If you have any questions on this matter, please call me. N O O O N 0 N O N O O N 01 0) 0) 0) 10 0) 0) T N 00) 001 0) CO O) Residential O O E9 .- E09 69 n O O O r E9 t N LO 0 0 N d• O N CO 0 0 O O O O O O E9 to 6 CO 0 0 CD O O O r E9 r 0 E9 E9 O N 0 8 CO 0 0 O O O O r 0) E9 ED ELO 9 0 0) O O ( O IA O Co E9 0) (,) O O CO O O O CA 0) E9 NE9 tt to T CO 0 0 CO O O r CD CO CD E9 0) t1 O O to O O E9 N f0 0) E9 6 O1 T r- O O tt O O L a' 001 T 0 0 0 Tr. O O EO CO �N} 0)) W. EA 0) T N 0 O 171 a) N N O lL LL O 45 N r CD u) C1 >. >+ as w c d 0 0 i6 a6 iC LT- MCES Charges O O 01 E9 O O N 0 O N 6r9 O co 0 O co E9 0 0 O N O Lo r O O tri 0) Rates per 100,000 gallons The MCES rates for 2001 to 2005 are projected and are subject to change. 2001 -2003 water rates shown is for use up to 30,000 gallons per quarter. INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL Agenda Item 5B PROJECT #: 21 -9.. PROJECT: Highland Meadows 3`d Addition DATE OF ORIGIN: TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: ••o Formal Application at this time/Developer requests comment on Sketch Plan. • 'Sketch Plan Included: 27.72 Acres lots/34.67 Total Acres/Lot size range 10,800 to 40,594 Sq. Ft. /Zoned R1 /Proposed PUD Significant vegetation( Historic Oak Savanna) off western edge /does not appear to have significance in terms of hydrologic & soils relationship (soils composed of Zimmerman fine sand and Solderville, both nonhydric and well drained) •No planned greenways through this area • Attachments: Concept sketch plans STAFF COMMENTS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: •Protect Oak Woodland on West side "Site ideal for infiltration/maintain predevelopment water volumes as much as possible Standard Environmental Board recommendations including: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Tree Preservation/Historic Oak savanna on West Side. Surface water to Marshan Lake / pond and infiltration, surface water issues not settled. Hapax &_PepeartovBoapS Xtrt o_ Acvo AaKeo Buffers /Oak Savanna and water drainage areas/use of native plants • No greenway issues • Other than the Oak woodland, there are no known significant environmental features on this site. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Board: • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: the Board reached the following consensus: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member FINAL VOTE DATE: Yes No DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: .... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending .... 1 COUNCIL ACTION DATE: .... pending .... PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations related to actual implementation. Thi� includes issues raised (and resolved) during implementation, general observations, and project outcome. 17apxa_ &_Peepeanov_Boap5 Xtn oQ Aivo Ammo- TKDA TOLTZ, KING. DUVALL. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES. INCORPORATED ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: John Powell Copies To: From: Jason Wedel 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101.2140 PHONE: 851/292-4400 FAX: 851/292 -0083 Reference: Highland Meadows West 3rd Lino Lakes, Minnesota Date: February 1, 2001 Cominission No. 11985 -012 I have reviewed the sketch plans for Highland Meadows West 3rd received on January 16, 2001. I have the following comments: 1 A minimum of 20 feet of easement is needed for any storm sewer that is proposed along lot lines. 2. All proposed ponds must be located within a drainage and utility easement. 3. The street widths need to be discussed further. The proposed connection of Elizabeth Lane to Bluebill Ponds is to a street that is to be constructed at a width of 28 feet. This would conflict with the existing portion of Elizabeth Lane that is 32 feet in width. 4. TSM still has not properly graded Highland Meadows East. A condition for approval of this plan should be the proper grading of Highland Meadows East. 5. All existing homes that are being removed must have their wells and septic systems properly abandoned. 6. The pond on the east side of the plat does not seem to serve much of an area. 7. None of the proposed ponds appear to have an outlet, which implies that they are infiltration ponds. If this is the case, soil borings in these locations will be necessary to prove the soils and ground water are conducive to infiltration. 8. The bench mark information provided on the grading plan does not pertain to this site. 9. Lots 37-42, Block 1, have runoff that exits the site without any treatment for sediment removal and rate control. If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, please contact me. An Equal Opportunity Employer 11'',Mfrr7f ``. • . ..: ;-, •••• i ,..______,_ . ... 1 , FK I • : — — 1 i I tli"ihr I i : ••• . IJ— A -- - - -- — 7!;', , . • ' • 1 1 r .1; i 1 ---k ! — - ..1_------- ---iro.-470.- ... T--1- I 1 t 1 ! , I :1 p , • 1-1! ; ,.._ _ „ , .L . . !I 1 t i - -- I I 11. ---,-- -- 1 r- .1.____Iii_____ ----1 '----------'- 1-- --iti■------ ---'1 i -4 ■ ,_.,.. ' 138 L •31.• .26 011111. OM ... !sap \ , , s > 1 , j , I • r...._-1 ----,.. - -- ..- I Is I t 1 . ' _...—......----„-- • • 7 • — 2 L. ..:, It .., f, •i , _...i, I 'I . "----• ----" '''''---- " T — 4. '--- t--- Allikh T.- - • I.- ' 14 . 6 . 3 . ..• 0.3 , 1 .J 3 , 1 i . l - .- -- 7 SHER14%. ..%!.. diREiN i --.4 ' .4/ ,1 1*--- • ''' . ,-----,---$9 4 . ._.._ , L_It . i' 3/1 — •,,2_ 144".01.411-- ,-- . r ,_.% r. , 12 • , t 4. .......1 i ■ . — --• .. . •••• I I • 1 I ' If 1 ! 1 '. ' • 0 1 3 ' , ! '.. ' 4 ' ' . ' ' ' ' .• -, • narrNviggiip 1 - 1 • . I'n'I• ' •• \ .1- •.0 n.t.:1 • „ I — _ . --- ), 1 . , PARK NORTH I 1 „ 1 114 I 1 - _ _. 49r4 - __• AUD 1 S 1' MIt •••••• .116:4% ••■- I , • • . ' LINO ' IN DC,5.111.1 tgd. ii°Fd5 • r- LI- () ii 37II u. ,1v 41/, nvv. Ij. 4 h n tiuj W 1O M 0 Min 0)• N - 204.00 S00 °37'02 "W - 7-1A/I1 1/'I IT A /•L)r -^ - I vvIL.1.7rl1 ' 101.54 r \ 1 Ln aI OUTLOT A 50,6 e1. 204.00 N00 °3702 "E W .O} M O MCN o ' N 204.00 S00 °33'26 "W L_ i2L,:o - - °0.65 76.55 L L- 444, =26 • 231.06 663.91 S00 °37'02 "W 166.25 T l A / I I I / ' I IT A /\Dr -^ I vvIL.I \7r1 I /-,vl \l..% .7 // / =37 / �ry / lD r 38 ,i 27 •2504 u. / / I_ /o4 � I\ I r\ A /' L) r -C, SIN /1v1 \L 06 00 z 0 SCALE 66 FEET 60 120 1 U,u, "60bet 270.03 S00 °37'02 "W 70750 01 !� .045 p V 1 II II at II alI III I II 41 11 42 1 L,aa u. = I I unx u. 40 27316 / / X:13 30 \ ,P 160 LSO M X50'10 �? »W ._Z c' ..k2o•oo ° R 11°55 49 I 71 ,_-� `) / S 76.14 _ _ 8 -- iv1ni\IL j - _ I / 140.61 ��` yjr I _- r1+,i 016 °47'04" ▪ - -� r --�- -, II 4 1 aiI 1507011. XI "-II 51 3 � u R =480.00 \\ C.BRG. =S00 °35'00 "E\ - •o- 1.54.72 1- - -- S77 °38'32 "W (; ) 7' 7,} 1 7 '�_ 77.07 ,1o. --711=12 °51'27" I R =343.45 r - 11 -3531- - 1 1 1 F- 3 LII..J! SI mw u. h p,O-L, L - - - -J nMwv LQ % - 145.,„ ,z51 \ 221. _J r-- - - W W w 19 7216 u. WM 22 11501 11. \ \\ v 117.40 - 166.E R� MARILYN \ \ 10002 0.F. m -l3r /7- Ag _ I 13 IP L 6021 u: 14717 6F. -60- - ,17. \J _ s7 114 1 1 1 12 /r 1/ 10 I 1462 u. / II - 10 .77 g 30.00 30.00 1 911. gl 11 \'814. I 25 14157 4.7. 203.34 15470 Li. EXISTING ZONING FI-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) ACREAGE 34.67 ACRES 111ROPOSED SITE_ DATA PROPOSED ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOTS R.O.W. OUTLOTS 27.72 ACRES 6.66 ACRES 0.29 ACRES OVERALL 34.67 ACRES SMALLEST LOT AREA LARGEST LOT AREA AVERAGE LOT AREA MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT REAR SIDE YARD INTERIOR SIDE YARD CORNER (STREET) MINIMUM LOT VADTH 0 SETBACK MINIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT AREA 30 FEET 30 FEET 10 FEET 30 FEET 80 FEET DRANVAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHORN MU& • • • • • • • • • BEING 5 FEET WI WIDTH ON ADJOINING ON ADJOINING STREET LINES AND REAR LOT UNES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLAT pROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION A The West 660.00 feet. of the Northwest Quarter of pro., the Northeast Quarter. Section 8, Township 31, ._30 Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. Except Parcels ...Os 32, 33, 34. and 35, ANOKA COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY * PLAT NO. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota �� RI 1 kl> \413' - -1-- 6565 30 4',4 Iii 10 Ig °� IS. ' \ Lli Li 1 1 +1673 Jp7I D 1 .-1 13010 14. 151 1 1 yp// J ,// ___i__ , 103.63 - 12/116 Lt.,., ,o 4 I STREET "C" 4/ 13. 15 i- 52.-\<\ . 1/ 14 \ 24717 11. \. \ % \\ \ \\ I \ 1 \ 260.62 M r 1 1U j`,1fr / 224.3, fr 4f/ 4 20416 U. �- - ,3600 1 74..• 1 Ir- • • c)nn•r -% LiL.VL_L.IL.L. , Li IVLJ.: r 1 167.07 J L- 14134 1292.48 S00 °33'22 "W 422 31 RI 52.01 MOO U. 0 OUTLOT B 043 SA 4119 44 1/ ef 10500 gl 17924 IS. 213 711 30 00 103.68 e R=280.00 30 00 And The East 300.00 feet of the West 960.00 feet of the North 660.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 8, Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County. Minnesota. Except Parcel 36, ANOKA COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 25. Anoka County. Minnesota And OuUot D and Outiot E. all in HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST, according to the plat thereof, Anoka County. And That part of Outlet C, HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST, according to the plat thereof, Anoka County. Minnesota, lying northerly and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Outlet C; thence South 00 degrees 33 minutes 22 seconds West, assumed bearing along the West line of said Outlet C, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 54.94 feet thence northeasterly a disance of 103.68 feet along a tangenUal curve, concave to the northwest. having a central angle of 21 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds and a. radius of 280.00 feet; thence northeasterly a disance of 60.23 feet along a tangential curve. concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 21 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds and a radius of 162.66 feet thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds West a distance of 215.13 feet to the point of beginning. RECEIVED JAN 1 7 2001 • EP, iv 1 &ligN 06' EP O.! DRAWN BY PUA DATE CAD FILE PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. 1-01-011 SHEET 1 OF 1 BENCHMARK FROM CITY OF UNO LAKES 1.) TNH 726 MAIN STREET ELEV. 916.62 2.) 1NH WEST END UNO LAKES ELEMENTARY ELEV.. 914.96 HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST 3RD ADDITION LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA FINAL GRADING & EROSION CONTROL FOR TSM DEVELOPMENT 222 MONROE STREET, ANOKA, MN 55303 PHONE: (763) 576 -9121 FAX: (763) 576 -9122 SCALE IN FEET 50 1 Inch . feet EIVED JAN 1 7 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES z 0 ra A a H� tosSi 4 ~ Pi1of 1�1 r4 E4 DRAWN BY CMR DATE 01/12/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196T5 —G PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 1 OF 4 • - - - - - - o - - - -Vgleaakb - - 6 - EXISTING ELECTRIC METER EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX EXISTING AIR CONDITIONING UNIT EXISTING GAS MARKER EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE e 0 1000 EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE/TREES EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER LINE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SILT FENCE TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION NOTE: 1. THERE SHAU- BE NO SLOPES STEEPER THAN 31 1.) TNH 726 MAIN STREET ELEV. - 918.82 2.) TNH WEST END UNO LAKES ELEMENTARY ELEV. 61446 1 7 2001 INO LAKES ciP• J 35\ '% 1 t 1 1 15 1 l l a \ r ^. 9 • ♦ O\ } • NZIENG } / • • w n10 VO.. -'^' • NOTE: 1. THERE SHAU. BE NO SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 BENCHMARK FROM CITY or UNO LAKES: 1.) TNH 726 MAIN STREET ELEV. - 918.82 2.) INN WEST END UNO LAKES ELEMENTARY ELEV. - 914.96 I Y • • EXISTING ELECTRIC METER t \ \ ' • EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX \ \ ® EXISTING AIR CONDITIONING UNIT < 0 i l • EXISTING GAS MARKER __ ^ _______ \ \ __ D EXISTING GAS METER 1000 l \ abooao EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION I EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE I 000 iv,�- rwwwwrn * O EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE/TREES EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER LINE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SILT FENCE TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION R CEIVED 0 1 1 7 2001 aE z. I E„E vs 6� ees is A $gg !mkt )1 r ri2EQ 045 Sg r o Npri A O f Q � C5 DRAWN BY CMR DATE 01/12/01 REVISIONS UN OF LINO LAKES 50 100 150 1 Inch 50 feet CAD FILE 20196G PROJECT NO. 20196 SHEET 3 OF 4 f! jRAL GRADING * FROSI0I CONTROL NOTE& 1. SPECIFICATIONS MI CH APPLY ARE THE MOST RECENT EDITIONS OF THE OTT OF UNO LANES AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARNENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION UNLESS 6001FIED HEREIN ON THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 2. IT IS 114E RESPONSIWUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR 70 UTUZE THE 'GOPHER STATE ONE CALL' EXCAVATION NOTICE SYSTEM AS 6(0(00ED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE CHAPTER 216D. 46 HOURS PRIER TO PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION (PHONE 651 -454 -0002 N 114E 71111 CITES METRO AREA 0R TOLL FREE 1- 600 -232- 1166). 3. GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVA110NS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTUTIES W114 114E RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.: 4. ALL COAST UCTON AS CALLED FOR ON THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED N ACCORDANCE MTi ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS. 3. ALL LOT AND EASEMENT DIMENSIONS ARE SUBJECT 70 FINAL PLAT. 6. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CALLED FOR ON 1MESE PLANS AND SPECNRCATDNS, 60404 MAY INCLUDE FILTER FENCE,SEDIMENTATOM BASES OR TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND SERVICEABLE N 150 FOLLO51N0 CODER AS REQUIRED. a. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES S FILTER FENCE 4. TEMPORARY CILVERTS. 4 TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASES AND OM1FA L FACILKff3. 0 STORM WATER POND CONSTRICTION. L COMMON EXCAVATION 1040 EMBANKMENT (GRACING CONSTRUCTION) 9. SEED AND MULCH SEE NOT: 14 ). k STRAW BALE BARR S N GRADED AREAS. L INLET AND OUTLET FACILITIES SUBSEQUENT TO STORM SEVER CONSTRUCTOR 7. GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A440 MAMTAM ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOVE ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IMPLEMENT ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION C014TL0. MEASURES NECESSARY N ORDER TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY. IL ALL EROSION CONTROL FAOUTCS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE GRADING CONTRACTOR DURING GRADING OPERATIONS ANY TEMPORARY FACILITIES 11104 ARE 10 BE REMOVED AS CALLED FOR ON THESE PLANS AND SPE0FICATIONS SHALL BE REMOVED BY TIC GRADING CONTRACTOR MIEN DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. Tiff GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL THEN RESTORE 1111 SUBSEQUENTLY DISTURBED AREA N ACCORDANCE MN 114.5E PLANS AND SPEONCATWII$. 9. IT S TE 6ESPONS 86)17 OF THE GRADING CONTRACTOR ID DISPOSE 13FF -91E ALL TREES. STUMPS BRUSH, OR OTHER DEBRIS THAT E95T5 WINN THE CONSTRUCT/ON AREAS. TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY 111E ENGINEER 10. THE GRADING COTNTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE THE SONS ENGINEER S0 THAT CERTIFICATION W ALL CONTROI.00 11LL5 CAN BE FURNISHED TO THE OY6NER DURING AND UPON COUPLE71011 OF THE PROJECT. 11. DENSITY TE513 SHALL BE TAKEN 70 EVALUATE THE COMPAC110N ROHM TILE STREETS. TRAWL WAYS CO PARKING LOTS 511114 114E UPPER 3 FEET CF STREET SUB GRADE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL SOILS BE NOT MORE TIAN ONE PERCENTAGE PONT OVER THE SOILS STANDARD PROCTOR OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. AND IHAT COMPACTION TO A ENIAMUM OF 1006 OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY BE PROVWED. N AREAS BELOW THE UPPER THREE FEET OF SBGRADE 01 THE STREETS TRAVEL WAYS OR PARKING LOTS 1NE•OONWACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT All SOILS BE NOT MORE THAN THEE PERCENTAGE POINTS OVER 111E 5aL'S STANDARD PROCTOR OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. AND THAT C01.PACTIN 10 A MN6W OF 05X OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY BE PROVIDED. THE GRADING TOLERANCE FOR THESE AREAS SHALL BE VANNIN 0.1'4. 12. LOT GRADING AND/OR THE PREPARAIKN OF BUE.0NG PADS SHALL EE CONSTRIC1E0 N ACCORDANCE MTH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 114. GRADING 10016444E SHAH BE 0.20.4. ALL EARTHWORK OPERATIONS SHALL 8E PERFORMED N ACCORDANCE 71114 714. IUD -FHA DATA SHEET 790 'LAND DEVELOPMENT MN CONTROLLED EARTHWORK'. PROVIDING FOR A MINIMUM OF 903 STANDARD DENSITY, OR AS OT ON= SPECIFIED 07 THE GEO- TECHNICAL ENGINEER 13. BUILDING PADS SHOWN DAN EACH LOT ARE TYPICAL ONLY. T4. DEPTH 04 THE PAD FROM FRONT TO BACK SHALL LC GRADED THROUGHOUT NE FIR1 6014 OF 114E LOT DR AS NECESSARY 10 AVOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BOLDING AT THE I NAAM 90E YARD SETBACKS. (REFER TO THE PLANS FOR SPECIFIC SETBACK DISTANCES) W UNSUITABLE SOIL CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED MTHIN A PROPOSED BUILDING PAD THAT CA10101 BE CORRECTED OR REMOVED, T B TIE RESPSONS8UTY 04 111E CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY 1111 ENGINEER 00 TIE CONDITIONS AND TO LOCATE THE MOTS OF 190 UNSUITABLE AREAS. 14. UNLESS OTERMSE SPECIFICALLY NOTED, ITC FOL105640 SHE RE- VEGETATION TECHNIQUES SNAU. BE IMPLEMENTED. ALL DISTURBED AREAS EXCEPT SWEETS. SHALL BE COVERED MT( A L9MMUS OF 6' TOPSOIL AND SNAIL BE SEEDED MT4 MMOT 4000 MX AT IOOLBS. /ACE. SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED 64151 MOOT 11PE 1 AT 2_7014S/ACRE AND A 06C ANCHORED. SEEDING AND MULCHING SHALL BE MT414 2 80045 AFTER EARN MONK OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETED. ALL SLOPES THAT EXCEED 3(14):1 SHALL BE SEEDED 201)4 A ROOD FIBER BLANKET. FERTILIZER SHALL B 0-10 DR EQUIVALENT AND APPLIED AT 400 POUNDS PER ACNE. FER1522ER B TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE TOP 3 TO 4 NOES BY DISONO OR SOME OTTER SUITABLE LEANS. VEEN SEEDING AFTER NOVEMBER 1, CR MIEN TEMPERATURES 00 NOT EXCEED 40 COMM FAHRENHEIT. 1HE CONTRACTOR SHALL DORMANT SEED ALONG ALL 0SRRBEO AREAS DORMANT SEED BED PREPARATOA 3EE0M0 RATES AND MULO4 REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE THE SA14. AS 1140SE DESCIBED N INS 5EC710N EXCEPT THAT 440 SEED SHALL BE PLACED ON SNOW CR ICE 1-001 B GREATER NAN 2 NOTES N DEPTH. ANY SEEDED AREAS M104 DO NOT BECOME ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RE- SEEDED AT 114IN CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE 15. 15 B THE RESVOMSBUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO KEEP PU51C STREETS, TRAVEL MAYS, PARKING Lon AM) WARS FREE OF DIRT AND OTHER DEMO EACH RESULTS ERNA SAID GRADING CONSTRUCTON. SPED_ GRA_._0 NOIE1 1. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND CO41041R ELEVATIONS ON 141 PLANS WERE PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. THE DECREE OF ACCURACY 04 TIC EXISTING CONTOURS SHORN ON THE PLAN 0 EQUAL 10 4 ONE HALF THE CONTOUR N1E6VAL NOTE: 1. THERE SHALL BE NO SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 BENCHMARK FROM OTT OF LINO LAKES: 1.) TNH 726 MAIN STREET ELEV. - 916.82 2.) 11414 WEST END UNO LAKES ELEMENTARY ELEV. - 914.96 R 5' METAL OR 2•.2'14000 FENCE POST GEOTEX14E MTH NET BACKING OVERLAP IIIROUGH TRENCH. f MW NONE 1 -SILT FENCE EMU. CONFORM TO MOOT 3666. 'TYPE 6. -FENCING SHALL 0010IEO ENGINEER. CONTOURS OR M DATE • Irt SILT FENCE W STANDARD ORAWMG DRG COY R/W VARIES 14' 16' 16' 14' -4" TOPSOIL & SOD (BY OTHERS) 1W(. SLOPE 3:1 WS. SLOPE 2.0% D412 CONC. CURB & CUTTER -13' -2350 TYPE LV 4 8R. WEARING COURSE TACK COAT -Y -2350 TYPE IN 2 OR 3 BIT. 6014-WEA NO COURSE Y AGGREGATE BASE. CL. 5 (PLACED ON APPROYED 319GRADE) 24' SELECT GRANULAR BORROW TYPICAL SECTION (URBAN STREET /PERMANENT SECTION) AQUATIC - �- 80604 15' NWL 10:1 3 MqX TYPICAL POND CROSS SECTION 6" MINIMUM DEPTH 1' - Y WASHED ROCK ' MNRMUM CUT OFF BERM Sri `"' 18 TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM 571E FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK TO STOP AMID MIGRATION THROUGH ROCK. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED CGR7oGR -->/.7� 6 PROPERTY LINE - SURFACE MANAGE SUMMED GARAGE MX mN aN7cM6c PRIMED 199.096 SKIN 920.5 RWO 6 926.5 LOT NARHRI 926.80 - -- -- 34.00 TYPICAL LOT 10' C•SMO CONTOUR FNBIRD GRADE ELEVATOR MOWN= HOUSE TYPE screrLAcKTINTaarro man E GRADE I00' STATION TYPICAL DRAINAGE & UTIITY EASEMENTS 6/R E%-.W1V7 20' w6u�'I RLO RECOMMD4p•IERUD�g1406111 HYPES fuS �OAIOT 6KA•10n Li�IMRS MIEONRfAO q�.I'�Ypgpi��I Sr.PI. M/ Kam[ A 91WMV1[ O°"" RM3 MI AMR nmo�1m, li, W R... A giFAilu'4' •iYA°T N•6V �6�FANOR IfM1IO� INN 110111. NMM riterm Wi ifoWTO A10Wi•"AWgPMOw R'iW.�el WHN.4 1 RlonN s semi. RECOMMENDED HOUSE TYPES SETBACKS FRONT 30 FEET SIDE (STREET) 30 FEET SIDE (HOUSE) 10 FEET SIDE (GARAGE) 10 FEET --1M I6RFr RAMBLER SECTION (R) 00m mat MOMS NNE1 .1 . mom r eAm PAP 6410 1551 ne•1 FAIR RAMBLER LOOKOUT SECTION (RLO) Nom OM ~IN •IVOI 4W0 PAP 8610 RAMBLER WALKOUT SECTION (REDO) -SEE STREET SEC31014--- 30' MMES 1111414 WW1 NM� 50' PAD ELEV. 12' HOLD 00RM r 10P504, I LOWEST RB M. ," SPLIT ENTRY SECTION (SE) -11 SWAT 1100 i' 1000 FINE MOO MAK �1 MD PPM r 1010% APED ND 011. (WARM IMO MESS SPLIT ENTRY WALKOUT SECTION (SEWO) • IVY o ▪ ce 5 e • a O v. • Z Qs C 1n g E Z w g E two-ELECT 0ONILL 1A9D0AL w•IL1i W."7°W."8"":"" �T0p i•MTR R4ARL*)DR1O LR 0621051) BUILDING SITE & STREET SUB -GRADE CORRECTION DETAIL O A�y co E- F W 9 g3 g 041 nig A W A x H x DRAWN BY CMR DATE 01/12/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196E -G 20196 20274 SHEET 4 OF 4 • • INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL Agenda Item 6B PROJECT #: 21 -11... PROJECT: Prairie Trac DATE OF ORIGIN: TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: • Recommendations are made to incorporate native landscape materials into site designs for new developments. The recommendations for the use of this type of plant material have a scientific basis, and is discussed in the Lino Lakes Environmental Management Plan, Numerous technical papers have been written on this subject. The reasons are simple. Surface water runoff quality improvement by creating buffers to 1. Reduce run -off, 2. Reduce chemical use, 3. Reduce fresh water use, all of which have effected the quality of our lakes and groundwater. Other reasons include labor and equipment cost savings to the City when used on public properties, and the aesthetic values that can be achieved. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Summit landscape plan and questioned the use of native materials. They have asked if there are any native plants that do not have to be mowed. All native prairie types of plants adapted to fire. Fire is the best tool to use in any areas that have been invaded by non - native plants (because they have not adapted to fire). According to A Prairie Restoration Handbook For Minnesota Landowners, "If the location of your planting makes it impossible to burn, you can mow and then rake off the cut material to prevent the development of thatch. Mow and rake at the same time you would burn." So the answer is no. The alternative to burning is mowing if it is not physically possible to burn. However, some species may disappear from your planting over time, so one would need to interseed periodically to maintain diversity. Favoring competition (those plants not adapted to fire) gives non- natives an advantage. The same can be seen for most sod areas of the city that have been installed on poorly prepared soils or in areas that are unirrigated. Within a very short period of time they go to weeds, or want to go to weeds and are combatted with huge amounts of herbacides and fertilizers.(that for the most part end up in our lakes) Mr. Jeff Smyser wrote a letter to Fire Chief Bennett after the last Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Please find attached. O. Chief Bennett responded back to Mr. Smyser. Letter attached. • The Environmental Board needs to respond to the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Board. 17apica &_Peepeazaov_BoapS Xirz oq$ Atvo AaKecr STAFF COMMENTS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: • The benefit cost of prairies (if burned) in relationship to chemical and nutrient poisoning of our lakes and drinking water is not comparable. Although there is not a lot of data on our ground water one can only expect they would reflect some of the chemical compositions found in our lakes. Our Lakes were classified as eutrophic (dead or dying) over 20 years ago. •. The City of Lino Lakes weed ordinance written several years ago specifically addressed the concerns of residents interested in prairie landscapes • The following is from the Environmental Protection Agency's' Document "Green Acres." Fire One of the most common arguments asserted in favor of local weed ordinances is fire prevention. As to natural landscapes this argument is predicated on the unproven contention that tall grass and forb stems, commonly planted as part of a prairie or meadow, constitute a fire hazard. This is not, in fact, true. In New Berlin v. Donald C Hagar, 166 United States Forest Service expert David Seaberg testified that a grass fire can sustain high heat for only twenty seconds. In order to ignite wood and sustain a fire potentially damaging to a home, a grass fire must burn within four feet of the home for seven and a half minutes. Jude Gramling agreed, finding no rational basis for the claim that natural landscapes create a fire hazard.- According to John Diekelmann, a noted landscape architect and plant ecologist, most prairie or meadow plantings contain a large portion of green leafy material at ground level during most seasons and do not sustain fire.'— In short, restoring an area as prairie does not create a fire hazard. Moreover, if fire prevention • were the purpose, a rational ordinance would prohibit the accumulation of biomass in a given area based on some index of flammability, not merely undefined weeds. • Fire departments spend large amounts of money fighting wildland fires that could be effectively controlled with periodic burns. • Yes, the business community dues have a preference and a choice. They should. The issue of designing with natives in an integrated fashion that is acceptable to our businessmen and is also resource functional has been accomplished. See attached article "St Jude Medical ". • The touring of sites like St. Jude was listed as an agenda item wish for the February meeting agenda by the Environmental Board at the last meeting. Environmental ISSUES: • Defined to some abbreviated degree in above correspondence. 17apKa= &_Peveartov_Boap& Xtrz og) Atvo Aaxs6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Board: • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus was reached by the Board: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member FINAL VOTE DATE: Yes No DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): •.... pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: .... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): •.... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION DATE:.... pending .... 17apxo_ &_Pexpeartov_Boap5 Xtrt oq Atvo Aar50 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations related to actual implementation. This includes issues raised (and resolved) during implementation, general observations, and • project outcome. •.... pending .... PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE:.... pending .... ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date Haim°. &_PexpeariovBoapB Xtrt oq5 Atvo Aaxecr MEMORANDUM February 15, 2001 to: Milo Bennet from: Jeff Smyser subject: Prairie Grass Controlled Burning cc: John Powell, rty Asles n, Brian Wessel At the February 13 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board, the Board had questions about the need to burn native prairie grass. The question came up during the discussion of the Summit Fire Protection project on Apollo Drive. The Board asked for Fire Dept. comment. (Merely a coincidence that this project—Summit Fire Protection — prompted a formal request for info.) The P & Z requests comment from the Fire Dept. regarding the burning of the prairie grass plantings. This request concerns not only this project, but the burns in general. There have been numerous commercial projects in past months that, based on recommendations from the Environmental Board and Marty, have included native prairie grasses in the landscaping plan. The P & Z has expressed concern about this in the past, but this time they specifically asked for Fire Dept. comment. This project will go to City Council in March, but I would greatly appreciate your comments as soon as possible to allow City staff time to examine the issue further before City Council review. Please address your comments to me and I will pass them on to the City Council and P & Z. Thanks for your help. Please feel free to call with any questions at (651)982 - 2425. Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 784 -7472 Office (651) 784 -2427 - Fax MEMO DATE: February 21, 2001 TO: Jeff Smyser FROM: Milo Bennett SUBJECT: Prairie Grass Controlled Burning In my opinion, the use of prairie grass definitely creates a problem. We would like to reduce open burning, not increase it. In the spring and fall, the DNR will ask us not to issue open burning permits during the dry conditions. This always seems to be the time that they want to burn this prairie grass. It has been our policy to be uniform with the burning permits. This means that if we can't give a resident a permit, we will not give a company a permit either. This has created some controversy in the past but we will be sticking to that policy. The reason for a burning permit is to dispose of material for which there are no other practical methods of disposal. Leaves and grass clippings cannot be burned because they can be composted. We allow the burning of tree branches and such because there is no practical disposal site for this material. The intentional planting of prairie grass, which has to be burned on some regular basis, is wrong in my opinion. Just think of the problems we would have if we allowed residents to burn their lawns. This was a common practice many years ago but as population grew, it had to be stopped for both safety and pollution reasons. Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) A United Slates EPA Ag.ncy The John Marshall Law Review Volume 26, Summer 1993, Number 4 A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. - - -- The Land Ethic t Page 1 of 27 I. INTRODUCTION The natural landscaping "movement "2 has taken root and its adherents are a varied lot. Attend any one of the many seminars held on natural landscaping, prairie restoration, xeriscaping, or wildflower propagation, and you will be with suburban uppies, weekend ecologists, and seniors whose retirment hobby is gardening. At the seminars you will also encounter hard -core professional scientists and botanists interested in preserving the gene pools of endangered and threatened plant species and the restoration of ecosystems. There will be some natural landscapers wearing tie -dyed tee -shirts who look as if they just left a Grateful Dead concert.3 In the Northeast, these people are re- creating the dense layers of the native American deciduous forest; they replace lawns with understory species like dogwood, wild azaleas and native shrubs, ferns and woodland wildflowers. Midwesterners are re- creating tallgrass and shortgrass prairies. Arizonians are landscaping with Sonoran desert native species like giant saguaro, multi- stemmed ocotilo, and prickly pear cactus. They all share a common goal - -- to harmonize gardening and landscaping practices with Nature .4 Many natural landscapers, however, face municipal weed inspectors who challenge their right to "garden in Thoreau's Tradition ".5 These conflicts are the unfortunate result of the collision of opposing forces; those who favor a return to a harmonic relationship with Nature against those who promote the myth of superabundance and the belief that "progress" is the process by which the less ordered natural world is harnessed by people to create a more ordered material environments.6 This notion of progress based on domination of Nature has its foundation in the "enlightened" thinkers such as John Locke who wrote "land that is left wholly to nature ... is called, as indeed it is, waste ".7 This article argues that this homocentric view of the world is ill- conceived and the use of weed laws to prohibit natural landscapes is a manifestation of the fundamental misunderstanding of humankind's proper place within Nature. http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 2 of 27 To understand this article, however, one must first understand the lexicon. Here are some important definitions: Natural Landscaping - The practice of cultivating plants which are native to the bioregion without resort to artificial methods of planting and care such as chemical fertilizer, mowing, watering other than by through natural processes (rain), with the goal of harmonizing the landscape with the larger biotic community and ecosystem of the immediate and surrounding bioregion.8 Natural Garden - A smaller version of a natural landscape. In its most simple terms, it is a garden planned and designed to work with, rather than against, Nature. "9 Exotic - A plant growing other than in its natural bioregionalien.10 Weed - "A plant considered undesirable, unattractive or troublesome, especially one growing where it is not wanted, as in a garden." 11 _ Any federal, state, county and local, statute, regulation or ordinance which limits the type or size of vegetation which grows or is cultivated on land within the jurisdiction.12 Weed Law The Land Ethic, espoused by Aldo Leopold, 13 is the central tenet that must be followed if humankind is to survive. The analysis of weed laws within the rubric of the Land Ethic may initially seem to mix relatively minor legislative enactments with a grand concept. But the Land Ethic, as demonstrated below, operates on both grand and minute levels. It succeeds only when all aspects of humankind's interaction with Nature, large and small, inculcate its meaning. In this regard, the average individual, although concerned, is essentially helpless to remedy the plight of the Amazon, the destruction of the ozone liyer, oil spills off Alaska and Scotland or any of the hundreds of other assaults currently being waged against the organism that is Earth - Gaia.14 Landscaping and gardening represent, for most people, their most direct interaction with Nature. This Article thus turns to the application of the central ecological tenet, the Land Ethic, to local weed laws - not because such laws are the most ecologically pernicious laws, but rather because weed laws operate on the most basic level to affect the landowner who tries expressly or otherwise to manifest the Land Ethic. This Article seeks to advise and persuade more than the typical Law Review subscriber, lawyer, or judge. There is little in the way of published material available to city legislators to assist them in evaluting the natural landscaping movement and its effects and impact on their village. There are few published cases available to attorneys representing citizens who engage in natural landscaping and are charged with violating a weed ordinance. This Article attempts to fill this void. This Article is primarily a clarion call to policy - makers to accept and embrace the natural landscaping movement and begin to accept the Land Ethic. II. THE LAND ETHIC http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 3 of 27 Aldo Leopold is a modern prophet,15 the "spiritual father of conservation" 16 and an "authentic American Hero." 17 His classic work, The Sand County Almanac,' 18 in which he articulated the Land Ethic, is the Bible of the modern environmental - conservation movements.19 He was not the first to espouse the notion that humankind and Nature are inter - connected. Henry Thoreau20 and John Muir21 gave this notion a modern voice. Others have spoken.22 Leopold, however, said it best. He combined sound science, clear prose and cogent logic to articulate an objective way of thinking about humans and their relationship with the natural world. Where many scientists of his time saw their work as distinct from economics, politics, religion and other disciplines, Leopold did not compartmentalize his thinkmg or analysis. The Sand County Almanac is a collection of essays in which he attempted to "weld" the concepts of ecology, esthetics, and ethics. An integrated understanding of these ideas was what Leopold termed the Land Ethic.23 A. Ecology Ecology is the scientific study of the relationships between the various components of the natural community. Leopold considered ecology simply the nature of Nature and the proper human role within it.24 He wrote "ecology teaches us that no animal - not even man - can be regarded as independent of his environment. Plants, animals, men and soil are a community of interdependent parts, an organism. "25 Leopold entered the Forest Service in 1911. Stationed in the Carson National Forest in New Mexico, he became an advocate of aggressive predator management. In one of his oft - quoted passages, Leopold wrote what he had learned one day after killing a wolf and the significant impact it had on his thinking: We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger -itch; I thought that because there were fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean a hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.26 He wrote about the consequences of a simple approach to game management, like predator control: Since then, I have lived to see state after state extripate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountam, and seen the south - facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every echble bush and seedling browsed, first to anemic destitute, and then to death. I have seen every echble tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn.... In the end the starved bones of the hoped -for deer herd, dead of its own too -much, are bleach with the bones of dead sap, or molder under the high -lined junipers.27 Leopold's notions of ecology in general, and wildlife management and predator control in particular, although long acknowledged in scientific circles, have now http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) won popular favor. The Endangered Species Act28 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act29 are two legislative embodiments of the biocentric view that Nature's elements are essential even though the economic benefits to humankind may be neither obvious nor direct.30 B. Esthetics Page 4 of 27 The second element of Land Ethic is natural esthetics - an appreciation of Nature as beautiful for what it does rather than how it looks.31 Traditionally, in most of Western thought, Nature was viewed in homocentric terms.32 Leopold challenged that perception and believed that rather than defining beauty m abstract temporal human terms, form followed function and that beauty was morc. cerebral than Perceptual experience.33 In the Sand County Almanac, Leopold described the wonders of Nature without resort to words like "glorious," "beautiful," or "sublime. "34 Before Leopold, the preservation of natural areas was consistent with a homocentric philosophy and almost exclusively a function of the area's visual impact. National Parks were carved out, areas that demonstrated a "take -Your- breath- away" quality.35 Consistent with the policy of protecting only the visually beautiful, the National Park Service engaged in facade management by eradicating predator species that prayed on popular animals, sprayir, pesticides, preventing natural fires and introducing aestheticall pleasing exotic plant species.36 This view is changing. Visual beauty is no longer accepted as an appropriate basis for preserving natural areas. Leopold's natural esthetic is now officially recognized. 37 C. Environmental Ethics Aldo Leopold's third governing concept of the Land Ethic is environmental ethics. Leopold considered ecology a moral mandate since the efforts of science "could only carry us so far. "38 "All science can do," he wrote, "is to safeguard the environment in which ethical mutations might take place. "39 The ethical obligation that the members of a natural system have is to "preserve the health of the system by encouraging the greatest possible diversity and structural complexity and minimizing the violence of man-made changes.i40 Environmental Ethics is akin to religion.41 Justice William 0. Douglas in his book, A Wilderness Bill of Rights, touched the same cord42 as did Laurence Tribe in his classic critique of the homocentric basis for environmental laws, Ways Not To Think About Plastic Trees.43 D. Aldo Leopold: A Pioneer Natural Landscaper Natural landscaping is the manifestation of the Land Ethic. The Land Ethic is summarized in Sand County Almanac: All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/greenacres/weedlaws/JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 5 of 27 member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co- operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for). The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively, the land. In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land- community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow- members, and also respect for the community as such.44 Aldo Leopold began practicing his Land Ethic through natural landscaping in the late 1930s. In central Wisconsin, he "sought to take a tract of wornout land and bring it back to its original state.i45 On the "Sand Farm," as it was known, Leopold was inspired to compose the Sand County Almanac. In addition to practicing rural natural landscaping at his Sand Farm, Leopold was responsible for the first urban American natural landscape.46 In 1932, Leopold oversaw the restoration of two square miles of derelict farmland to its natural state at the University of Wisconsin aboretum.47 The Land Ethic he espoused and the practice of ecological restoration he began in Madison and on his farm are the foundational precursors of the modern natural landscape movement. This movement, however, must overcome regressive weed laws and uniformed public officials who reject the Land Ethic. E. The Judicial Acceptance of the Land Ethic The biocentric Land Ethic, the welding of ecology, esthetics, and ethics to recognize humankind's inter - dependence with Nature, is part of the common law. In Southern Illinois, for example, the Cache River Natural area once considered a swamp whose raison d'etre was to be drained by farmers, is now a National Natural Heritage Landmark, the preservation of which an appellate court held takes precedence over the desires of farmers.48 In Minnesota, Leopold's Land Ethic was expressly adopted by the state's supreme court as the guiding principle for construction of state envirommental law.49 Justice Douglas relied on Leopold to support his argument for a broad definition of standing in environmental cases.5o The Land Ethic, unfortunately, has not penetrated the minds or affected policy decisions of some city legislators and officials who cling to archaic and environmentally hostile weed laws and prosecute natural landscapers. Such actions contradict. humankind's true relationship with Nature. The history of local weed laws explains their intransigence. Slowly, through the efforts of various citizens and groups, the ignorance and history that girds these laws, is being wittled away. This article now turns to that history. III. A HISTORY OF WEED LAWS AND THE BATTLES OVER THEM A. Why We Have Weed Laws http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 6 of 27 Before humans became "civilized" there were no weed laws because in Nature there are no weeds. Weeds are a product of civilization and cultivation.51 As agrarian society developed, weeds became the bane of farmers because these exotic plants crowded out crops.52 In the United States, even before World War I, states regulated certain plants perceived harmful to agriculture. The prohibited plants were placed on noxious weed lists usually developed by the state's department of agriculture.53 However, agrarian weed control laws, necessary to protect crops, do not pose problems for natural landscapers. Rather, natural landscapers are confronted with the local weed laws - -a recent phenomemon that is unrelated to protecting crops or livestock from exotic plant species.54 Local weed laws exist in the cities and the suburban lands of shopping malls and tract housing. Communities enacted weed laws aiming to protect the public from neglectful landowners whose littered yards could attract rats, mosquitoes or present a fire hazard. As a result of the misunderstanding of some charged with enforcing weed laws and poor draftsmanship, these laws are often wrongfully enforced against natural landscapes. Natural landscapes are not a threat to safety or public health.55 More distressing, enforcement of local weed laws fosters an unnatural aesthetic conformity, by promoting and protecting monoculture laws, that furthers the malignant notion that humankind and Nature are independent. Historically, the "virtues" of such artificial landscape were noted by Frank J. Scott, one of America's first landscape architects, in The Art of Beautifying Suburban Home Grounds. Scott wrote "[a] smooth closely shaven surface of grass is by far the most essential element of beauty on the grounds of a suburban house. "56 Lawns exist today for several reasons. First, lawns serve as a physical and psychological "moat" between the homeowner and the outside world. Second, it is theorized that humans are genetically predisposed to favor open grass -type landscapes as an artifact of our species' development on the savannas and grasslands of East Africa.57 Third, to many sprawling green shaved lawns are a status symbol delineating suburban homeowners from their city brethren who generally have neither the land nor resources to make such a public statement of wealth. Finally, in the land of cookie -cutter tract housing a premium is placed on neatness and conformity both of which are promoted by mono -turf yards. Manicured lawns are, unfortunately, the collective face of modern suburbia. B. What Is Wrong With the Green Lawn and Weed Laws: And Those Who Proved It. The proliferation of the suburban mono -turf lawns, so lauded by Scott, now covers 30 million acres, an area the size of Virginia, requiring billions of dollars in equipment, chemicals, and upkeep.58 In addition to the cost and direct harm to the environment,59 the proliferation of the suburban mono -turf yard hastens the process of plant extinction by reducing the available habitat for native plants, a global threat.60 Exotic plants tend to out - compete native species because the exotics' http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 7 of 27 predators, animals and diseases often do not exist in the foreign land. Local weed laws, which continue to protect and proliferate exotic mono -turf, are a constant reflection of the detachment of modern society from Nature. Early local weed laws were enacted in the 1940s outlawing "weeds" usually above some arbitrary height. These fiat laws are typified by the Chicago weed law which flatly outlaws "any weeds in excess of an average height of 10 inches. "61 Perpetually green lawns, like plastic trees, implicitly reduce the entities they portray to terms of serviceability, utility, and adornment. And such caricatures in turn reinforce the belief that the depicted objects exist not for themselves but to service superior needs.62 As such, mono -turf yards are the most obvious example of humankind's disregard for Nature and its failure to recognize and practice the Land Ethic. Lawns are imposed on the landscape without regard for local geography, climate, or history.63 True gardening, by contrast, is the natural give and take between the gardener and a piece of land - the essence of the Land Ethic. Putting in an exotic lawn "represents instead a process of conquest and obliteration, an imposition... of an alien idea and even a set of alien species (for the grasses in our lawns are all imported). "64 The lesson of the Land Ethic is that "humans must change their role from conquerer of the land to member and citizen. "65 With the publication of Silent Spring66 and the attendant growth of environmental awareness in the 1960s, homeowners began to cultivate natural landscapes. These practices collided directly with the establishment's wooden view of what was proper groundcover for a house and the weed laws used to keep it that way. The history of suburban natural landscaping and its conflict with local weed laws is a story about people and organizations. Leopold firmly believed that if the Land Ethic was to ever succeed it must be practiced by private citizens, not just government.67 The natural landscape movement is the story of how the efforts of a dedicated few can convince the many of what is good and right. It is a tribute to the power of people to change society's attitudes, and in turn its laws, for the better. 1. Lorrie Otto - The High Priestess of Natural LandscapingMovement The modern suburban natural landscape movement's roots are traced to the efforts of one woman, naturalist- teacher Lorrie Otto. When the Ottos moved to their suburban Milwaukee home in the 1950s, the front yard was an acre and a half of lawn with a bed of tulips and 64 spruce trees. It looked like a swiss chalet surrounded by Christmas trees. Mrs. Otto wanted her children to learn first hand about the wonders of Nature so she planted some blue and white aster (Aster azureus), yellow goldenrod (Solidago canadenis), fragrant bergamot (Monarda fistulosa), and some ferns.68 In the early 1960s, Bayside, Wisconsin, officials viewed her wild fern garden as "weeds" and cut it down. An enraged Lorrie Otto took up the fight and convinced village officials that a natural landscape was a public good and not a health hazard. She went on to become the director of the "Wild Ones - Natural Landscapers, Ltd.," a non - profit organization whose mission is to educate and share information with http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 8 of 27 members and the community at the "plantslevel" and to promote bio- diversity and enviromentally sound practices 69 By 1992, the Wild Ones boasted five chapters in Illinois and Wisconsin and more than 1200 members. Mrs. Otto, now in her seventies, has received national awards for her environmental efforts. Her naturally landscaped yard is considered one of the best gardens in America. It contains 80 wildflower and grass species reflecting the diversity of a native Wisconsin prairie. In a poetic turn of fortune, in the village that once sent a mower to level Mrs. Otto's wildflowers, there are now sold -out bus tours of a dozen naturally landscaped homes including her now famous yard. 2. The National Wildlife Federation The National Wildlife Federation (NWF), formed in 1936 by conservationists concerned with the loss of fishing and game,7° is the United States' largest not -for- profit conservation education organization with 5.4 million members. In 1973, in connection with its efforts to teach and promote the notion of shared stewardship responsibility towards water, soil, air, plants, and wildlife, the NWF developed and promoted its Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program. The program educates its members, supporters and the public about how to provide the basic habitat requirements of wildlife - -- food, water, cover, and a place to rear young - - -as they plan and plant the landscapes around their homes, schools, and places of work.1 Since the program's inception, the NWF has sought to explain that a great variety of plants, not just the limited selection of trees, shrubs, flowers and turf grasses traditionally used in planting yards, provide superior habitat for wildlife. The NWF enthusiastically promotes alternatives to the turf grasses. Those alternatives include small woodlots and wetlands as well as meadows and prairies and other traditional alternatives such as vegetable gardens, shrub masses and flower beds. The NWF has joined the natural landscape movement by encouraging cities to change their weed laws and by joining in litigation with both legal and technical support. More recently, the NWF brought the message to schools teaching students the Land Ethic by creating natural habitats on school property.72 3. City of New Berlin v. Hagar73 The Hagar decision marks a significant watershed in the natural landscaping movement. It is the first, and best, judicial recognition of the practice and the irrational assumptions that underly the use of weed laws to prosecute natural landscapers. The City of New Berlin, Wisconsin elected not to appeal Judge Gramling's decision and, as a result, the opinion is unpublished. Because this opinion is so significant it appears in its entirety in Appendix D. In April 1976, New Berlin sued Donald Hagar for violating its weed law by practicing natural landscaping and cultivating a several -acre meadow.74 Hager, a http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 9 of 27 wildlife biologist, fought back. He brought in experts to refute the city's claims that his landscape was a health hazard.75 The testimony was convincing. Forest Stearns of the University of Wisconsin, demonstrated that the Norway rat does not inhabit or find food in a natural landscape. United States Forest Service fire expert, David Seaberg, testified that Dr. Hagar's prairie did not create a fire hazard. Professor Philip Whitford, a botanist from the University of Wisconsin, testified that a prairie fire, unlike a forest fire, does not create large and persistent embers that can be carried by the wind. David Kopitzke, a Milwaukee County Public Museum botanist, established that wildflowers and natural landscapes do not create a pollen problem. Exotic plants, like Kentucky Bluegrass, and trees, like oaks, create more allergenic pollen than a native prairie. After three months of deliberation, on April 21, 1976, Judge William Gramling issued his decision.76 The Court found nothing in the testimony to justify the fire and pollen hazard claims that the city cited to support the weed ordinance. He found that natural landscaping did not negatively affect neighbor property values. The court stuck down the ordinance as violative of the Equal Protection Clause because the factual underpinning for the law was too thin to be rational.77 Following his victory, Mr. Hagar continued his natural landscaping and New Berlin has not bothered any natural landscapers since.78 4. Montgomery County, Maryland v. Stewart79 Walter Stewart, a scientist, and his wife, Nancy Stewart, a Justice Department attorney, borrowed a page from Mr. Hagar's playbook and successfully repelled efforts by neighbors and Montgomery County, Maryland officials to enforce a weed law against their natural landscape. The Stewarts allowed a six -acre natural landscape to grow around their suburban home. In 1987, the Stewarts received a citation for violating the local weed ordinance. In response, they compiled a detailed scientific and legal case arguing that their natural landscape did not pose a danger to the safety or health of the Montgomery County residents. The county argued that overgrown yards harbored rats and snakes and were harmful to people with respiratory problems. Faced with the Stewarts' evidence, however, the county elected to drop the charges.80 Because of the Stewart's efforts, Montgomery County changed its weed law to allow meadows as long as there is a 15 -foot buffer maintained at 12 inches or less, and species on a noxious weed list, such as poison ivy, are controlled.81 5. Little Rock, Arkansas v. Allison82 In the South, Lyndae Allison maintains a natural landscape that the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission considers a natural wildlife area. Her half acre yard is mostly hardwood forest, with trumpet vines and mulberry trees. The City of Little Rock had a different view. Little Rock cited her for violating Article 20 -2 of the http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 10 of 27 municipal code which forbids "grass, weeds, or any other plant that is not cultivated" to grow higher than 10 inches or "in rank profussion on the premises. "83 The case went to trial in 1988. The city weed inspector testified that Allison's yard was filled with ivy and honeysuckle, but he found no garbage or litter. A state urban wildlife biologist, Karen Yaich, testified that natural landscapes, like Allison's, do not attract rats or pest snakes. Ms. Allison testified that she cultivated a natural landscape in order to provide nesting sites for native wildlife and because she preferred the natural appearance. Little Rock Municipal Judge Marion Humphries dismissed the citation. The Court held: It appears that what [Ms. Allison] was cultivating was the kind of vegetation that would not attract snakes or rats as suggested by her neighbors, that it would attract songbirds. For that reason, her premises would meet the standards of the Game and Fish Commission of having a certified backyard wildlife area.84 Without interference, Ms. Allison currently continues her natural landscaping efforts. 6. Ladybird Johnson and the National Wildflower Research Center Ladybird Johnson led the effort to beautify the National Highway System and was instrumental in the passage of the statute implementing her efforts.85 In 1982, as a spin -off of her highway beautification efforts, Ladybird Johnson and the late Helen Hayes founded the National Wildflower Research Center, a non - profit environmental organization dedicated to the preservation and reestablishment of native wildflowers, grasses, shrubs, and trees. The Wildflower Center, with 18,000 members, provides information on recommended native plant species and seed and plant sources for each state, plus tips on planting and maintaining native plants through its Information Clearinghouse.86 The center is an important institutional base for the natural landscaping movement. 7. The Canadian Cases Across the border, the same battle is being waged between the natural landscapers and some of their neighbors and village officials. Lary Lamb, a university ecologist, has fought neighbors in his Toronto suburb for years to maintain his native North American prairie in his yard.87 One thousand miles to the east, Cathy Smallwood grows a native woodland in the Newfoundland capital, St. John's.88 In September 1992, the city served her with a citation for violating the law that required yards to be "kept clean and free from growth of weeds and grass that are detrimental to health or public safety... or by reason of not being cut regularly are excessive when compared with neighboring properties. "89 The matter came before the planning commission and Mrs. Smallwood convinced the commission, 5 -4, to allow her to keep her natural http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 11 of 27 landscape. Thanks to her efforts, St. John's is now considering re- writing its weed ordinance to expressly allow natural landscaping. 8. The "Chicago 5" In America's heartland the battle is being waged to convince the nation's third largest city to permit residents to naturally landscape" something the State of Illinois, Cook County, the Park District and the city itself all actively practice on public lands.91 The Chicago 5 are a varied lot. Jack Schmidling grows a natural landscape consisting of a 110 varieties of Illinois prairie, woodland and wetland plants and wildflowers.92 His yard attracts 64 species of birds. Mike Regenfuss cultivates a natural landscape as an important part of the North Branch Prairie Restoration Project, a joint project of the Cook County Forest Preserve District and The Nature Conservancy, a national conservation organization.93 Since 1949, Larry Clark's family has cultivated a natural landscape consisting of a savanna, prairie, wetland, and an experimental garden.94 Debra Petro lives on Prairie Avenue and since 1988, she has grown native Illinois prairie and savanna plants as part of the Chicago Park District's Bob -O -Link Prairie Reconstruction Project 95 and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources' Hoosier Prairie Restoration Project. Rich Hyerczyk grows native Illinois prairie plants to help preserve native plants in cooperation with the Cook County Forest Preserve District.96 In 1991, the Chicago 5, fed up with the continuous threat of citation for violating the weed ordinance, filed suit in federal court to declare the Chicago Weed Ordinance unconstitutional.97 Beyond the legal arguments,98 the Chicago 5 raised compelling common sense arguments for allowing them to maintain natural landscapes in Chicago. The City cultivates a native prairie of wildflowers, legumes and grasses at The David Lee Animal Control Center on the near south side.99 The Cook County Forest Preserve District is aggressively reintroducing prairie plants throughout Chicago.' 0o The Chicago Park District is engaged in similar programs.' 01 Like the Park District, the Illinois Department of Transportation is reintroducing native prairies throughout the state. Its reasons are: (1) historical (Illinois is the "Prairie State "); (2) environmental (prairie plants are beneficial to wildlife); and (3) economical (by introducing prairie plants, IDOT is able to save money, and reduce gas consumption, wear and tear on IDOT machinery, and man- hours necessary to mow roadsides).102 The fact that homeowners are prosecuted while the governments that prosecute them plant natural landscapes demonstrates the tug -of -war between those who want to live the Land Ethic and those who want to continue the practices that ignore humankind's proper place within Nature. Some in government, like the Chicago Park District, recognize the Land Ethic. Others, like those who prosecute natural landscapers, do not. The view of the former is taking hold for a host of compelling reasons set forth below. http : / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 12 of 27 IV. THE REASONS FOR AND RESPONSE TO THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE MOVEMENT A. The Movement Officially Takes Root Cook County and Chicago are not the only governments embracing natural landscaping - interest in the practice is global.103 In the London borough of Richmond upon Thames, for example, there is a sprawling "hay meadow" resplendent with such wildflowers as buttercups and red clover.104 In 1990, Congress mandated that 25% of all funds spent on highway landscaping projects be used to plant native wildflowers along the easements and rights -of -way of the Nation's highways.105 The Clinton Department of Interior is working with the Nature Conservancy and state and local governments to restore ancient American landscapes including the Park Savanna in the Midwest, the coastal sage scrub ecosystem in Southern California and the Hill Country region landscape in Texas.106 Remarkably, even the conservative, anti - environment Bush Administration strongly advocated natural landscaping - which it called "the New American Garden Style." 197 According to the United States Department of Agriculture Director of the National Arboretum: In the past, wildlife was thought of as the enemy of gardening and agriculture. Everyone has stories of destruction and ruin of valued plants and crops. These concerns no longer have to be reasons why wildlife cannot be welcomed back into our living space. A new gardening style, first designed by Oehme and Van Sweden, landscape architects of Washington D.C., was created on the grounds of the U.S National Arboretum as, the New Arnerican Garden Style. The design, the plants, the preparation of the site, the maintenance schedule and the year -round display all work together to reclaim a disturbed site and restore it as to habitat where wildlife and humans can coexist 1 os According to the Bush Administration, a homeowner with a New American Garden should "overseed the entire area with native wildflowers." 109 Canada has officially embraced natural landscaping. The Ottawa City Council, for example, has approved plans to let nature take its course by reclaiming the city's 56 parks with natural landscaping. The idea is to naturalize the public parks by planting trees, creating woodlots and plowing up existing grass to replant selected wildflowers and native grasses.1 l o The actions of national, state, and local governments demonstrate that natural landscaping and the goal of harmonizing our yard with Nature and attracting backyard wildlife has officially taken hold. Natural landscaping is even termed "fashionable." 111 The actions of governments and the acceptance of natural landscaping is not without cause. There are good reasons for this trend. http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) 13. Why the M ovemeltt Is Taking Root Page 13 of 27 Prairie ecologist Neil Diboll, a natural landscaping advocate and expert for nearly two decades, cites three primary reasons for the rapidly growing acceptance of natural landscaping: (1) ecologic; (2) economic; and (3) spiritual.1 12 Ecologically there is no doubt that natural landscapes are preferable particularly when compared to traditional suburban exotic lawns. Since natural landscapes do not require pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers, the harmful effects of these chemicals are eliminated.113 In light of water shortages and problems with non- point source Pollution, natural landscaping has profoundly positive ecologic effects. Xeriscaping, the practice of planting native low- water - consuming plants, is the law in many cities and one of the most compelling ecological bases for natural landscaping.114 The positive economic consequences of natural landscaping are twofold. First, there are the direct costs. Natural landscapes are less costly to maintain than a_traditional exotic lawn or exotic landscape. Once established, natural landscapes are not mowed, fertilized, treated with pesticides or herbicides, and they do not need watering.115 For the homeowner or office building manager, direct costs are substantially reduced.' 1 6 State departments of transportation across the nation are some of the strongest advocates of natural landscaping. They recognize the benefits of natural landscaping and plant native plants on roadsides and rights of way throughout their jurisdictions.117 The Minnesota DOT is perhaps the most notable in its efforts. The MDOT Wildflower Program is involved in preserving and planting prairie wildflowers at many rest areas and along roadsides throughout the state. In addition to beautification of the state, a tourist attraction, the MDOT cites many discernable benefits from its program.118 Natural landscaping also reduces the costs of pollution cleanup. For example, water pollution in inland lakes and rivers could be reduced when those living within the watershed naturally landscape their yard. The result would be reduced run -off and a reduction in non -point source pollution attributed to fertilizers and herbicides used for maintenance of mono - culture lawns.119 The second economic argument for natural landscaping is the doctrine of diminishing marginal value - the less of an asset that remains the more valuable it becomes. As suburban sprawl continues to consume open space, the elements of Nature that remain and can be preserved increase in value. Accordingly, many developers are citing to the natural landscapes retained in their developments as a positive asset. Prices of homes in such sub - divisions often cost more than similar homes in areas without natural landscaping.! 20 The final reason for the movement towards natural landscaping - the manifestation http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 14 of 27 of the Land Ethic through our yards - is spiritual. Diboll's argument is that insofar as we view ourselves as external and, therefore, not a part of Nature, we do not share the universal energy and soul of the "Great Spirit" whether the spirit be God, in the Judeo- Christian view, or some other metaphysical being. This disconnection from the life of the planet and universe deprives humankind of the security of belonging to the big picture. The resultant "insecurity" or lack of connection drives humankind to seek other forms of security, such as financial security, in an attempt to insulate ourselves from the chaos of everyday life. To achieve financial security, humankind despoils the Earth by converting natural resources into capital - an unnatural concept. In the process, humans have become unbalanced, and are willing to damage the very systems upon which they rely for sustenance. This devastation transcends economic models, from capitalism to communism to tribalism. It is not so much a problem of systems as it is a problem of spirit and culture. Ultimately, economics drives culture and religion. Humankind can no longer pursue a pattern of destroying the Earth; this is now uneconomical. No organism can survive in a medium of its own waste. Therefore, we must develop spiritual systems that reflect this new reality and reward better nature in non - economic terms, i.e., spiritual growth rather than monetary growth. Spiritual development will be a growth market of the future - that spirituality is the Land Ethic and is manifested by homeowners through natural landscaping.121 C. What Cities Have Done in Response to the Movement In response to the efforts of the Ottos, Stewarts, Allisons, and Hagars of the world, and consistent with the reasons set forth by Neil Diboll, not only are governments at all levels engaging in natural landscaping, but many municipalities are changing weed laws to allow their citizens to naturally landscape their yards free from the fear of prosecution. The level of freedom, however, varies. 1. The Madison "Permission "Law Madison, Wisconsin was the first major city to recognize the legitimacy of natural landscapes by enacting an ordinance validating them. As a result of its goundbreaking legislative efforts and because it is home to the University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Madison is considered the cradle of the prairie restoration movement. Although many cities have enacted ordinances modeled after the Madison Ordinance, upon close examination, the ordinance proves both good and bad. The Madison Ordinance requires the homeowner to file an application for a natural landscape and then obtain the approval of a majority of his neighbors.122 By expressly allowing natural landscapes, the ordinance represents a significant first step in the process of reversing the blight of truly environmentally harmful turf. The neighbor veto and the application and approval process, however, are unnecessary limitations on the right to naturally landscape one's yard. These requirements also lead to a process of ad hoc "permission" to plant native plants and grasses. Finally, http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 15 of 27 the premise of the Madison Ordinance is counterintuitive - why should natural landscapes be singled out as requiring permission when truly harmful landscapes remain unregulated? 2. Modified Local Weed Laws A better, and more recent type of local weed law remedies the shortcomings of the Madison Ordinance by allowing natural landscaping without either neighbor approval or city permission. These laws retain the traditional prohibition of growing "weeds" or "rank vegetation" but include a modifying clause that places natural landscapers out of harm's way. There are two versions of modified weed laws: (1) the setback ordinance and (2) the natural landscape exception ordinance. Setback ordinances generally require an area measured from either the front or the perimeter of the lot, in which the vegetation may not exceed a certain height, like ten or twelve inches, exclusive of trees and bushes. The vegetation behind the setback and within the yard, is unregulated. Setback distances depend on the type of community and size of the typical lot. ' 23 Communities with homes on large lots could have as much as a twenty -foot setback, while in towns with smaller lots, a two- or three -foot setback would be more suitable. Setback laws have several advantages and represent a workable compromise between the sometimes diverse interests of the village, natural landscapers and neighbors. Primarily, setback ordinances allow for the unregulated growing of vegetation on a majority of the lot. Like a frame around an abstract painting, the setback around the perimeter creates a tended look that satisfies neighbor and village concerns of conformity and aesthetics. The yard takes on its intended look. A setback also solves the practical problems caused by large plants and grasses lopping over into neighbor yards or across sidewalks. The setback ordinances are also easy to understand and enforce. Both the village and natural landscaper benefit from a clear and simple law. Neighbor complaints are generally satisfied by such compromise and living in a community makes compromise essential. The liability inherent in these setback laws is that a portion of the yard is rendered off4imits for certain types of tall native plants. In some cases that excluded portion may prove to be the best land available to the homeowner for cultivating certain plants. This liability is, however, a small price to pay for an otherwise workable and fair ordinance. The second type of modified weed laws are those that limit the blanket weed ordinances with broadly worded exceptions for environmentally beneficial landscapes.124 These exceptions include: http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 16 of 27 NATIVE PLANTINGS WILDLIFE PLANTINGS EROSION CONTROL SOIL FERTILITY BUILDING GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CULTIVATION BIOLOGICAL CONTROL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE WOODED AREAS - the use of native plant species for aesthetic and /or wildlife reasons; - the use of native and /or introduced plant species to attract and aid wildlife; - to offset and control any soil loss problems both occurring or predicted; the enrichment and eventual stabilization of soil fertility through the use of various plant species; - any federal, state or local pro -grams which require the unimpaired growth of plants during a majority or all of the growing season; - any areas designated for educational studies; - any plant species or group of plant species native or introduced and grown for consumption, pleasure or business reasons; - the planting of a particular plant species or group of species which will effectively out compete and replace a noxious or troublesome weed species without additional soil disturbance of the site; - any and all public parks and open space lands whether under the jurisdiction of federal, state, or local agencies including private conservation /preservation organizations; and - all areas that are predominately wooded. Such modified weed laws expressly protect natural landscapes. They are easy to understand and adequately balance the interests of natural landscapers and neighbors. Additionally, exceptions can be added or deleted from this list to tailor the weed ordinance to the needs of the village and the bioregion in which the village is located. 3. Promotional Natural Landscape Laws The final type of new local weed law not only allows for, but promotes the Land Ethic by encouraging natural landscaping. Villages which have chosen this route generally have no prohibitory weed laws. They have few laws coupled with proactive measures and policies which encourage the use of native plants and natural landscapes.125 Long Grove, Illinois, is a good example of a community that embodies this policy.126 Long Grove has no law regulating vegetation height. The village requires developers to include scenic easements, at least one hundred feet deep and planted with native plants, wildflowers and grasses between the homes and major streets, in their subdivisions. Large portions of the town are designated natural areas as determined by a scientific ecological survey. Long Grove employs a naturalist to advise developers and homeowners on how to cultivate and maintain natural landscapes. Long Grove sells native plants and seed mixes to residents and has a committee that reviews prairie restoration projects within the village. The median home price in this naturally landscaped village is $383,000.127 http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 17 of 27 Fort Collins, Colorado has gone further than Long Grove. The city employs a full- time wildlife biologist and has a ten acre nature preserve in the heart of downtown on land that used to be a formal park. There is a city program to identify and certify homeowner's backyard wildlife habitats. To receive this certification, homeowners must let Nature reclaim their non - native lawns. Hundreds of citizens participate in the program.128 Such pro- active natural landscape laws are, of course, the ultimate goal that we must attain. They truly reflect the teachings of the Land Ethic. V. SOME VILLAGES STILL DON'T GET IT - WHAT TO DO IF YOUR VILLAGE IS ENFORCING ITS WEED LAW AGAINST YOUR NATURAL LANDSCAPE. The types of old weed laws used by municipalities to prosecute natural landscapers generally suffer from a variety of legal flaws. These flaws can be exploited by natural landscapers who are targeted for prosecution in order to win his or her case, or hopefully, convince his or her village that the weed law should not be applied to natural landscapes. The flaws are constitutional, practical and evidentiary. A. Natural Gardening as a Fundamental Right. 1. Landscaping as Speech and Art Natural gardening can be constitutionally protected speech and, therefore, any weed law must be closely related to a compelling state interest. While not all natural landscapes are obvious to even a casual viewer, many are. Indeed, this is often the real "problem." Symbolic speech is as protected as oral speech. One of the best ways a person can announce his or her concern for what humankind has done, and is doing, to the environment is to restore a portion of the environment to its natural state. Restoring natural vegetation can, therefore, be a form of speech and, as such, is entitled to the same protection that speech receives under the First Amendment) 29 The attempt made by natural landscapers to politically express themselves through the cultivation of wild plants is one that parallels historical and traditional precedents.l3° The political use of flowers as symbols is as important today as it has been in the past. The red rose is the symbol of the Socialist Party in France and the British Arbor Party. In the War of the Roses, opposing sides took roses of different colors as their symbols.131 Natural landscaping can also be artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.132 State law recognizes the beauty, artistic expression and virtue of landscape gardening.133 Landscape architecture is defined as "the art and science of arranging land together with the spaces and objects upon it, for the purpose of creating a safe, efficient, healthful, and aesthetically pleasing physical environment http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 18 of 27 for human use and enjoyment." 134 A weed law, as applied to natural landscapers, denies the landscapers' ability to express themselves, through an activity statutorily recognized as art. Neighbors and government officials need not concur that the natural landscape is "art" before First Amendment protection attaches. In interpreting art as speech protected by the First Amendment, the court in Piarowski V. Illinois Community College 135 stated, "[t]he freedom of speech and of the press protected by the First Amendment has been interpeted to embrace purely artistic as well as political expression (and entertainment that falls short of anyone's idea or art...)..." 136 One of the most spectacular examples of natural landscaping as art lies in the heart of Chicago's Grant Park. The Wild Flower Works II is the creation of Chicago artist Chapman Kelly.137 Kelly sees his garden of wildflowers, legumes and other native plants not merely as dirt and flowers, but rather a giant canvas on which he does his "most spectacular work." 138 The ecological painting is a socio - political work that symbolizes the proper role of humankind within Nature. In 1988, when the Park District sought to have the Wild Flower Works plowed under, Kelly went to court and obtained a temporary restraining order arguing his First Amendment rights. The lawsuit was later settled by allowing the Wild Flower Works to remain in Grant Park and the Park District to receive regular reports on its maintenance. "Gardening is the art that uses flowers and plants as paint and the soil and air as the canvas - working with nature provides the technique." 139 More remarkable examples of gardening as art are the efforts of the French Impressionist, Claude Monet. Following the death of his wife, Monet moved to Giverny, France in 1883. There he planted the gardens that were the subject of his most famous paintings. Focusing on color relationships and the effects of light, Monet carefully arranged pure colors in the abstract form of flowering plants to "create richly patterned textures and mood by contrasting or homonizing color relationships." 14° In the later, and most productive part of his career, Monet used his flower and water gardens at Giverny as a living studio. "With the living, growing and changing plants, always subject to light and weather, Monet created an organized concentrated color environment where he could live, breathe, observe and walk, forever having his painter's eye challenged by the effects of light." 141 Many of the plants Monet employed, and much of the layout of the gardens, are the same or similar to many of today's natural landscapes. Enforcement of a weed law denies the artist the tools of her art, Nature. A city's weed law enforcement is as devastating to a natural landscaper as declaring music a nuisance would be to a musician. Absent a showing of some compelling municipal interest, a city does not have the power to restrain a natural landscaper's freedom of expression. The unjustified restraint of freedom of expression consitutes a violation of the First Amendment. http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 19 of 27 2. Landscaping as Religion Natural landscaping, for some, can be a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Courts essentially recognize religious practices subjectively, the only test being whether the individual asserts his belief in good faith and that belief could arguably be religious.142 Therefore, not only would the established Native American religions 143 and Eastern religions 144 which preach the oneness of humankind and Nature be entitled to First Amendment protection for natural landscaping, but those who hold "nontraditional" religious beliefs would also be entitled to such protection. Certainly, the adherents of Deep Ecology 145 would be entitled to First Amendment protection for natural landscaping practices. Beyond First Amendment protection to these less - common religions, the fundamental teachings of the Bible and Judeo - Christian theology encourage a stewardship approach to humankind's interaction with Nature.146 Vice President Gore narrows the focus and strongly supports the premise that traditional Judeo- Christian religions counsel for a harmonic relationship between humankind and Nature 147 Enforcement of weed laws can be an impediment to the free exercise of these religions. Whatever protection the Constitution affords that free exercise would apply to the practice of natural landscaping for those individuals engaged in it as a result of or in furtherance of their religion.148 B. Weed Laws as Unconstitutionally Vague Even if not a constitutionally protected fundamental right, natural landscaping can escape attack from out -dated weed laws because such laws generally do not define the term "weed" and are, therefore, unconstitutionally vague. The Chicago Ordinance, like many, merely outlaws "weeds" or an accumulation of weeds.149 As such, these laws provide a subjective and relative standard, which violates the Due Process Clause. A law is void for vagueness where it does not clearly define what it prohibits.l5o. A law is void on its face if it is "perfectly vague "; to sustain the challenge the statute must be one which provides no "ascertainable standard for inclusion or exclusion." 1$1 Weed laws that fail to define "weed" suffer from such a constitutional infirmity. ) 52 The term "weed," where not statutorily defined, must be ascribed its dictionary definition. But "what is a weed ?" is a vague and subjective determination. Its meaning varies depending on who is applying the definition and where the subject plant is located in relation to other "desired" plants. Thus a "weed" to a farmer may be a rose or iris growing in his corn or wheat field. But a rose or iris is not a "weed" to the conventional gardener, who would cite corn or wheat growing in his flower bed as "weeds." 153 As Justice Douglas wrote: "Words which are vague and fluid http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 20 of 27 may be as much a trap for the innocent as the ancient laws of Caligula."' 54 Weed laws can clearly be such a trap. In Newark V. Garfield Development Corp.,155 one court ad- dressed the issue directly. In that case, the court struck down an ordinance that stated "all areas shall be kept free from weeds or plant growth which are noxious or detrimental to public health and welfare or a public nuisance defined in article 2." Article 2 defined public nuisance as "any premises which are unsanitary, or littered with rubbish or garbage, or which has an uncontrolled growth of weeds." The court held: That which appears to be contained without exception in all weed control legislation but which is lacking in the ordinance in question is the definition of the particular vegetation which is sought to be controlled or a mechanism by which the particular vegetation is designated to be noxious and therefore subject to government control 156 The court summarized the reason for the ruling as follows: [I]t seems clear to this court to be utterly repugnant to our system of law to punish a person for an act, the criminality of which depends not on any standard erected by the law which could be known to the defendant in advance, but one erected by a judge or jury after the trial has been completed.157 Even if weed ordinances are not void on their face, they can often be vague -as- applied to those who engage in natural landscaping. Across the nation, all levels of governments are actively pursuing natural landscaping.15• The most remarkable, and perhaps ironic, example of a government natural landscaping is Chicago's prairie on the southside at the David R. Lee Animal Control Center. The city planted hundreds of pounds of wildflower, native grass and legumes seeds at the site. Marie Wojciechowski, who is being prosecuted by Chicago for violating its weed ordinance, gathered seeds from the city's prairie garden and grew plants from those seeds on her property.159 She even received a letter from a city landscape architect asking her to call if she needed any further assistance or information about the prairie.16° Ms. Wojciechowski now defends herself in a criminal case brought by the city for growing the offspring of the city's own plants. Without an exact definition of what type of vegetation is prohibited, weed laws violate due process because they allow law enforcement officials and judges to rely on their own notions of what is right and what is wrong.161 The primary thrust of the void - for - vagueness doctrine is: The requirement that a legislature must establish guidelines to govern law enforcement.... Where a legislature fails to provide such minimal guidelines, a criminal statute may permit a standardless sweep that allows policemen, prosecutors and juries to pursue their personal predilections.162 Weed laws create such a result. Absent guidelines within the text of the weed law itself as to what plant species are prohibited, an enforcement officer is free to decide, strictly on his own, whether the plant complained of in a given situation is http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 21 of 27 illegal. Since weed inspectors have no guidelines to determine if a homeowner violates the weed law, this is unfair and unconstitutional. C. Weed Laws as Irrational in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Unreasonable in Violation of the Common Law If natural gardening is not a fundamental right and the weed law is not vague, the party charged with violating a weed law may nevertheless challenge the rationale for a weed law. An ordinance must not only be rational to survive constitutional scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause,163 but under the common law, municipal ordinances must pass a more exacting standard of reasonable- ness.164 Natural gardeners have successfully proven that local weed laws are irrational and unreasonable as applied to natural landscapes.165 Natural landscapes are attractive and they do not decrease property values. More directly, natural landscapes do not create a health hazard, as cases have proven. Some uninformed government officials and citizens believe that natural landscapes cause problems with pollen, fire hazards, rats, and mosquitoes. These mistaken beliefs are all soundly refuted by testimony and studies. In fact, natural landscapes reduce many of the very hazards that weed laws are intended to prevent. 1. Fire One of the most common arguments asserted in favor of local weed ordinances is fire prevention. As to natural landscapes this argument is predicated on the unproven contention that tall grass and forb stems, commonly planted as part of a prairie or meadow, constitute a fire hazard. This is not, in fact, true. In New Berlin v. Donald C Hagar,166 United States Forest Service expert David Seaberg testified that a grass fire can sustain high heat for only twenty seconds. In order to ignite wood and sustain a fire potentially damaging to a home, a grass fire must burn within four feet of the home for seven and a half minutes. Judge Gramling agreed, finding no rational basis for the claim that natural landscapes create a fire hazard.167 According to John Diekelmann, a noted landscape architect and plant ecologist, most prairie or meadow plantings contain a large portion of green leafy material at ground level during most seasons and do not sustain fire.i68 In short, restoring an area as prairie does not create a fire hazard. Moreover, if fire prevention were the purpose, a rational ordinance would prohibit the accumulation of biomass in a given area based on some index of flammability, not merely undefined weeds. 2. Vermin A second common argument raised in defense of local weed laws is that naturally vegetated areas sustain rats and other vermin. Rats and other animals commonly regarded as vermin require a steady food supply. Natural vegetation in yards does not provide the type and quantity of food required to sustain a population of rats http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 22 of 27 and other creatures regarded as vermin. 169 In short, the man -made food supply of the sort often provided by structures, especially barns or garbage dumps, is what sustains rats and other vermin. Thus, an ordinance aimed at limiting rats and other vermin should not be targeted at "weeds" but rather should prohibit the food mass -grown and openly stored on property. 3. Mosquitoes A third defense of local weed ordinances is the assumption that weed - covered areas provide a breeding place for mosquitoes. In fact, however, mosquitoes require standing water to breed. Even the fastest growing mosquitoes found in the upper Midwest need standing water for ten days to complete their life cycle. Since prairie and meadow areas tend to absorb water quickly, they are less likely than frequently watered lawns to contribute to the presence of mosquitoes. If mosquitoes are the problem, it is standing water and not weeds that should be prohibited.17° 4. Pollen A fourth justification for local weed laws is the belief that weeds produce pollen which contributes to the suffering of people with allergies. As with the other defenses of out -dated local weed laws, this is also mistaken. Herbaceous plants responsible for pollen allergens fall into two general types: (1) plants such as ragweeds which characterize environments subject to repeated disturbances such as erosion or cultivation, and (2) areas characterized by a permanent cover of non - indigenous turf and pasture grasses such as bluegrass, perennial rye, and timothy.17 t Traditional lawn and landscape maintenance procedures in urban and suburban areas of the United States, which are often the antithesis of natural landscaping and Land Ethic, are more likely to be a significant source of community health problems than landscapes most often cited for "weed" law violations 172 This issue was at the center of the litigation that led to the Fairfax County, Virginia "Weed Law" finding that the law was unconstitutional in 1976 in Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wills and Van Metre, Inc. 173 The decision was based in large measure on the testimony of Dr. Stanwyn Shetler, now the Assistant Director of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute. Dr. Shetler testified that wind -borne pollen may travel hundreds of miles so that a local weed ordinance has virtually no effect in reducing allergy causmg pollens. In his decision, Judge Richard J. Jamborsky found: Shetler's testimony [regarding pollen allergies and some other assumumptions about weeds] challenges and refutes some of the old notions about weeds and nuisances enunciated 73 years ago in City of St. Louis V. Galt. In the absence of a showing that its tracts are a health hazard, the defendant should be permitted to maintain the meadows.174 Similarly, in New Berlin V. Hagar,175 Judge Gramling found that a city's weed http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 23 of 27 ordinance applied to natural landscapes lacks a rational basis for the elimination of allergenic, wind -borne pollen that affects people with hayfever and other 176 allergies. 5. Enforcement of Weed ordinances Against Natural Landscapes Increases Wind -Borne Allergenic Pollen and Other Health Hazards The primary cause of hayfever is ragweed. 177 Ragweeds are a pioneer species in the normal course of plant succession that thrive in disturbed soil found in recently developed or degraded areas.178 In the normal course of plant succession, weedy pioneer plants would, if the soil remains undisturbed by cutting or other activity, be succeeded by grasses and herbaceous plants. All plants produce pollen, but perennial native plants and native grasses, the primary components of natural landscapes, are generally not producers of wind -borne, allergenic pollen. Allowing these plants to grow, operates to crowd out the weedy pioneer species that create the health hazard. Based on these facts, Judge Gramling concluded that the weed ordinance, as applied to natural landscapes, was counterproductive.179 Even more ominous than the health problems associated with some wind -borne pollens, is the likelihood that the chemicals used to establish and maintain mono- turf yards pose a serious health risk to the environment and to people and their pets, not to mention whatever wildlife remains in the area. Homeowners apply more than 67,000,000 pounds of active lawn chemicals each year, more pounds per acre than are applied by farmers.180 The damage to human health attendant to such landscaping practices is well - documented. For example in Fairfax County, Virginia officials blame the high levels of phosphorus in streams on lawn fertilizer run- off.181 The United States Environmental Protection Agency found potentially harmful levels of nitrate in more than half the drinking water wells tested nationwide. High nitrate levels can cause "blue baby" syndrome, a potentially fatal oxygen - depriving disorder in infants.182 Finally, researchers at the National Cancer Institute have linked frequent chemical -lawn treatments to an increased incidence of deadly cancer in dogs and suggest a link between the weed killer, 2, 4 -D, and cancer in humans. 183 By prosecuting natural landscapers, and either implicitly or expressly promoting exotic mono -turf yards, villages increasingly harm the public health. The connection between the prosecution of natural landscapers under weed laws and enhancing public health, safety and welfare is not well - founded. Prosecutor claims rest on convenient assumptions that have not withstood judicial or scientific scrutiny. Even more frightening is the likelihood that the correlation is inverse - - -- that these weed laws are, if not mandating, certainly encouraging turf grass lawns established and maintained with chemicals that seriously endanger the public health, safety, and welfare. 6. Aesthetics http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 24 of 27 The final recurrent criticism of natural landscapes is that such yards simply "don't look nice." Neighbors wish to live next door to neighbors who have yards of "beauty." To some, natural landscapes look unattended and "messy." Such shallow arguments demonstrate the underlying motivation that some feel to control the actions of those who dare to be different. "What beauty is I know not, but it dependeth upon many things." 184 Although some believe that beauty is visual, the Land Ethic teaches that beauty is determined by how an activity, plant or species fits within the natural world) 85 Humankind must conform its yards with nature, not some artificial model. Natural landscapes conform to nature and are things of beauty. On a perceptual level, a yard ablaze with colorful wildflowers and majestic flowing native grasses impresses the viewer and attracts positive responses from passersby. For example, Chicago's Grant Park, contains the two -acre "The Wildflower Works." 1$6 The Chicago Park District is planting native coneflowers and day lilies along the 4 -1/2 mile -long median of Lake Shore Drive, Chicago's most famous street. The program is considered the first of its kind in the nation and if the planting proves successful, the Chicago Park District plans to naturally landscape other major streets in the city.187 The State of Illinois ripped out the tulip end rose garden on the grounds of the State Capitol end replaced it with native Illinois prairie plants. Illinois believes the aesthetic appeal of native landscapes is more pleasing then traditional exotic landscapes end with respect to the claim that natural landscapes are ugly and decrease neighboring property values, the opposite appears to be true.188 These aesthetic qualities of natural landscapes have been embraced by corporate America. Sears, Roebuck & Company is plant -ing a landscape of prairie grasses and forbes around its new headquarters in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.189 Not only does Sears view the use of a natural landscape as en ecologic end economic benefit, but Sears plans to use the natural landscaping as a marketing tool to attract other corporate office users to the 786 acre site. Sears' plans have been called a "landmark" in the natural landscaping movement.190 Other corporations, large and small, utilize natural landscaping at their corporate headquaters for ecologic, economic and aesthetic reasons. These include: McDonald's in Oak Brook, Illinois; Westbend Mutual Insurance in Westbend, Wisconsin; Schneider Tracking in Greenbay, Wisconsin; and Promega Corporation, a biotech company in Madison, Wisconsin.191 Ultimately, the aesthetic argument against natural landscaping is illogical. One man's weed is another man's rose.192 To some, pink plastic flamingoes, polka - dotted bloomered cardbord ladies, twirling plastic sunflowers, astro - turf - covered front stoops, end perfectly sculpted evergreens look simply ridiculous; but to others, such landscaping is beautiful. People have a right to astro - turf - covered stoops, closely cropped evergreens, end spinning plastic sunflowers in their yards. That is the American way. But individuals also have the right to a natural stone walkway, http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) free- flowing native shrubs and forbs, end real sunflowers reaching to the sky in a blaze of gold. VI. WHERE TO GO FROM HERE - -- SUGGESTIONS FOR LOCAL WEED LAWS THAT EMBODY THE LAND ETHIC Page 25 of 27 In the end, it is the public perception that must change, particularly those in policy making positions in villages around the nation. History Points that way. In 16th Century England, wealthy andowners had lawns that were natural meadows starred with a thousand flowers. In those days, grasses were hated weeds, and garden boys would creep along the flower lawns picking out the grass. In the 19th and 20th Centuries, the perception of the ideal yard has been confounded. Grass became the vegetation of choice. Local weed laws protect and promote this ideal. We must return to the past. In response to the natural landscaping movement, communities are moving from repressive weed laws toward more progressive weed laws. The progress, however, is too slow; and far too often efforts to change regressive "weed laws" are met with opposition based on misunderstandings. Judges and government officials should abandon these ill- founded notions. The natural landscaping movement, having taken root, will continue to grow as we enter the 21st Century. Unfortunately, weed laws in many communities persist and create a significant impediment to the growth of the natural landscape movement. These repressive laws must be changed. In her recent book, Noah's Garden, Sara Stein challenges us to replace the sterile, contrived, inherited exotic landscapes that have unfortunately dominated our lives. She writes of a promising future where local and state laws regarding land use reflect the Land Ethic: Some time in the future, the value of a property will be perceived in part according to its value to wildlife. A property hedged with fruiting shrubs will be worth more than one bordered by forsythia. One with dry stone walls that provide passageway for chipmunks will be valued higher that one whose walls are cemented stone. Buyers will place a premium on lots that provide summer flowers and fall crops of seed. Perhaps there will be formal incentives: tax abatements geared to the number of native species; deductions allowed for Tots that require neither sprays nor sprinklers. A nursery colony of bats might be considered a capital improvement. There could be bonuses for birdhouses. Oh, brave new world! 193 This is the goal, but in populated urban areas, it may be unrealistic to believe that unregulated, pro- active natural landscaping laws, will be accepted in the near future. The "journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step," and it is with that axiom in mind that the following guidelines are offered to be used by communities in crafting new weed ordinances that begin the road toward a more http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 26 of 27 benign relationship between our yards and Nature: 1. The ordinance should protect the fundamental right of residents to choose their own landscaping; 2. The ordinance should apply equally to all residents as well as the City. County and State. if possible: 3. Any restrictions in the ordinance should have a rational basis; i.e., a legitimate interest in public health, safety or welfare; 4. The ordinance must not legislate conformity or aesthetics nor allow residents of the City to exercise control over their neighbors' landscapes; 5. The ordinance should not require the filing of an application, statement of intent or management plan; and there should be no review or approval process or fees assessed against residents who intend to engage in legitimate natural landscaping; 6. In order to avoid harassment of natural landscapers, the City's "weed commissioners" who will enforce the Natural Landscaping Ordinance, and thereby differentiate between those people who are growing permitted natural landscapes versus those with unpermitted growth, should be able to distinguish between the two; 7. Enforcement of the ordinance should be undertaken through due process of law which guarantees individuals the right to fair adjudication of their rights; and, 8. The ordinance should address the problems of environmental degradation brought about by proliferation of high maintenance monocultural landscapes, and the indiscriminate use of toxic chemicals in landscape management. It should encourage the preservation and restoration of diverse, biologically stable natural plant communities, and environmentally sound practices. This would reduce not only contaminants to the environment such as pesticides, fertilizers, pollutants and noise, but would help reduce the accumulation of yard waste A model for good, fair and workable modified weed ordinances embodying the foregoing guidelines is attached as an appendix. This model is simple, easily understood, and allows natural landscaping consistent with the Land Ethic. But, the law is not proactive in its treatment of natural landscaping. Two versions of such pro - active natural landscaping laws - proposed by Lorrie Otto and College Station, Texas are attached in the appendix. Lorrie Otto's proposed Natural Landscaping Act is the best available model law. It embodies the Land Ethic more directly and is similar to the approaches adopted in Long Grove, Illinois and Ft. Collins, Colorado. The proposed College Station, Texas Natural Landscape Ordinance is similar in its pro- active tone and effect. Any of these three models offer a significant improvement on traditional anti - Nature weed laws many villages still have on the books. The specific wording of any new weed law, of course, will vary from town to town and region to region based on particular climate, geography, and population density, but whatever the final wording, the weed laws of old must be changed to reflect the Land Ethic and thereby enhance, rather than inhibit humankind's chances of survival. VII. CONCLUSION http: / /www.epa.gov /glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 Weed Laws Article on Landscaping (John Marshall Law Review) Page 27 of 27 Laws, however, are only a first step. They offer a means to an end but are never an end themselves. We cannot rest with the enactment of a law and believe that it alone will accomplish the desired goal of a harmonic relationship with Nature. As Dr. Wilson observed: The wise procedure is for law to delay, science to evaluate and famili -arity to preserve. There is an implicit principle of human behavior important to conservation: the better an ecosystem is known, the less likely it will be destroyed. As the Senegalese conservationsist, Baba Dioum has said 'In the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught.'194 If we cannot learn to accept the Land Ethic in our own yards and learn to live with Nature, then how will we ever apply its teaching to the larger world around us. Aldo Leopold said: This [a destroyed prairie remnant] is one little episode in the funeral of native flora, which in turn is one episode in the funeral of the floras of the world. Mechanized man, oblivious of floras, is proud of his progress in cleaning up the landscape on which, willy - nilly, he must live out his days.'`" Hopefully, this type of progress can be held in check and ultimately reversed as natural landscaping continues to spread across the Nation. Local weed laws, a remnant of an age of conformity and misunderstanding, must be reviewed and revised to make way for this change. Great kaki (ir►ater EPA Ron* GUN Carr rtie,087. Last Update: July 30, 1997 URL - http: / /www.epa. gov/ glnpo /greenacres/weedlaws/jmlr.html Please contact Danielle Green with your comments. http : / /www. epa. gov / glnpo /greenacres /weedlaws /JMLR.html 2/22/01 St. Jude Medical -- Restoration and Prairie Gardens on a Corporate Site Page 1 of 7 -- ST. JUDE MEDICAL -- RESTORATION AND PRAIRIE GARDENS ON A CORPORATE SITE Virginia Gaynor INTRODUCTION Driving into the entryway of St. Jude Medical's Woodridge complex, most people slow down enough to wonder, "What is this ?" The landscape at this corporate site demands attention. Formal gardens using mostly native species give way to natural areas of prairie, savanna, and woodland. The scene provides an excellent framework to question our ideas of landscape restoration and prairie gardens. St. Jude Medical manufactures heart pacemakers and medical devices. Though just a five minute drive from downtown St. Paul, Minnesota, this corporate site is in a peaceful residential neighborhood of single family homes. The Woodridge facility is located southwest of the junction of Highways 36 and 35E, and is accessed from County Road B. Construction on the building began in 1993 and the gardens and natural areas were planted in 1994, so the landscape is still very young. PROJECT GOALS Having seen a prairie restoration at a YMCA camp, the building architect was interested in natural landscaping and called landscape architect Jim Hagstrom, of Savanna Designs in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. The idea of a naturalistic planting met with skepticism by some at St. Jude Medical. The company was concerned about its neighbors, about its reputation with the financial and business world, and about its clients and colleagues in the international medical community. They wanted to project an image of corporate responsibility. As Hagstrom points out, this image can be antithetical to natural landscaping. To explain natural landscaping and what might be possible for the site, Hagstrom showed corporate officers slides of natural areas and gardens which relied on native plants. He took them to visit restorations in the area, and they toured the very artistic planting of Betula nigra (river birch) and prairie grasses at General Mills, Inc. in Golden Valley, Minnesota. Hagstrom was candid about the benefits, challenges, and problems associated with naturalized plantings. In defining the project two key issues emerged: perception and sustainability. In Hagstrom's words, "the overriding issue of this project became one of perception." The primary design goal was to create a landscape which evoked an image of care, intent, and responsibility. Committed to the use of native plants, Hagstrom turned to traditional design techniques to "make nature acceptable" to his client. An ethic of sustainability was the other guiding concept for the project. Hagstrom's goals for a sustainable landscape in this cold climate are a design which: a.) requires minimal or no irrigation b.) handles storm water on -site c.) uses predominantly native plant materials d.) encourages biodiversity e.) invests in healthy soil (no fertilizer and pesticides) f.) minimizes or eliminates bluegrass lawns The design challenge was, therefore, to integrate a naturalistic landscape based on an ethic of http: / /www.hort. agri. umn .edu /h5015 /96papers /gayner.htm 2/22/01 • St. Jude Medical -- Restoration and Prairie Gardens on a Corporate Site Page 2 of 7 sustainability with a sense that the place was cared for. The term restoration was never used to describe this project. Yet, if landscape restoration is a reconstruction of the structure and function of a past ecosystem, this project has many components of a restoration. For Hagstrom the past is simply a model to study. It is not a landscape that must be replicated religiously. He selected prairie, oak savanna, and oak woodland as his models for this project and focused on form -- the plant species. To integrate nature with the human activities that will occur in this place, Hagstrom targeted only a few ecosystem functions (biodiversity, healthy soil, etc.). AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE Before European settlement this 11 -acre site was most likely oak savanna. An abandoned farm house next door suggests farming and the pasturing of animals occurred here. When St. Jude Medical began construction in 1993, the site contained a disturbed gravel pit, a dense oak woodland, and a small remnant oak savanna. Gravel from the site was used years ago for improvements of Highway 36 and Populus deltoides (cottonwood) near the gravel pit were 30 - 40 years old. There were low areas on the property which held water seasonally. The soil on the site is sandy and gravely. Because the building was newly constructed most of the site was regraded. Twelve inches of top soil was brought in and spread over the lawn and garden areas. The property today can be divided into several landscape areas (acreage is approximate): 1. Parking lots and building -- two acres 2. Prairie gardens (1/2 acre) and turf areas (1/2 acre) -- one acre 3. Natural areas: Prairie and savanna - -five acres Creek and pond -- part of prairie Oak woodland -- three acres THE PRAIRIE GARDENS The gardens merge native plants with traditional design techniques. These are formal gardens at the street entrance and the building entrance. Rather then describe each in detail, I will discuss some of the techniques the designer employed. These techniques are used only in the prairie gardens, not in the prairie and savanna areas. 1. Augmenting native plants with non - native plants. There will always be people that insist on the use of only native plants for restorations and naturalized gardens. The St. Jude Medical site uses primarily native species but augments them with cultivars of related native species, species slightly out of their range, and bedding plants and bulbs. o Cultivars of related native species. In this project, to obtain a specific plant size or form, a cultivar of a related species may replace a native species. For example, Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm' has bold flowers which are held above a dense canopy of deep green foliage. It has a compact cushion form. This is used instead of the native species Rudbeckia hirta which generally lacks the luxurious foliage and bunching form. Cornus sericea 'Isanti', the Isanti dogwood, replaces the native species C. stolonifera because it grows only five -feet high instead of the eight to ten feet of the native. o Species out of their range. The designer uses plants representative of the model plant communities -- prairie, oak savanna, woodland. However, not all the plants present are native in this region. The natural range of Echinacea purpurea (purple coneflower) for http: / /www.hort. agri. umn .edu /h5015 /96papers /gayner.htm 2/22/01 St. Jude Medical -- Restoration and Prairie Gardens on a Corporate Site Page 3 of 7 instance, does not extend as far north as St. Paul. However, this plant has such a strong association with prairies that it fits well in the garden areas. o Bedding plants and bulbs. Few prairie flowers bloom in early spring. In Minnesota, it is late May and early June before the puccoon, prairie phlox, and butterfly weed begin their display. Narcissus and Phlox subulata (creeping phlox) are used in some of the garden areas to provide early spring color. 2. Framing and contrasting. Sweeps of turf and a formal hedge of Ribes alpinum (alpine currant) are employed for framing and contrasting. The hedge begins at the street entrance and it separates the prairie from the entrance garden. This separation helps people compartmentalize the scene -- you first see the formal prairie garden and in the distance the prairie and savanna. The turf not only frames but provides a striking contrast to the formal beds or the unmowed prairie. 3. Geometric plantings. Geometry and straight lines seem hypocritical in a naturalistic planting. Yet in these prairie gardens they provide a sense of order. Some of the beds are strict rectangles with a single species or two planted soldier -like in rows and columns. When grasses are used in this format, they soften the harsh lines. Liatris and Rudbeckia cultivars blocked in this manner are bold and dramatic in bloom. There is nothing prairie -like in these geometric plantings. They represent the extreme end of a continuum from formal garden to naturalized garden to restoration.. The same species are repeated in more natural beds which have curving lines, more informal spacing, and a mix of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous materials. In establishing the formal areas, it was important to have the gardens presentable as soon as possible. Therefore, containerized plants were used, not seeds and seedlings. Additional top soil was brought in for the gardens. Some of this was rich soil from the low areas and had been stockpiled during construction. Boulders were placed to enhance the design and after planting a shredded bark mulch was applied to reduce weed growth and conserve moisture. The installation was done by the design company's landscape crew. This crew also maintains the gardens. The grasses and flower seedheads are not cut in the fall so they provide interest during the winter season. Spring clean-up includes pruning and cutting back the herbaceous plants. From May through August, the crew visits the site twice a month for weeding. The plants in the gardens are drought tolerant. Watering was done the first year to ensure successful establishment but is no longer necessary. No fertilizer is used in the gardens. Nutrients in the form of dead herbaceous material are not being returned to the soil but the gardens started with a rich topsoil, receive nutrients from decomposing bark mulch, and most of the species planted flourish in infertile soil. THE NATURAL AREAS The natural areas on the site required varying levels of intervention. An oak woodland that covers a hillside has been left untouched. It is heavy with underbrush including Rhamnus cathartica (common buckthorn). Hagstrom acknowledges that the woodland needs a management plan. The remnant oak savanna had several old oaks which were pruned to remove dead limbs. A small area (about 1000 square feet) in the savanna had a ground cover of native species including Koeleria cristata (June grass) and other native grasses. This patch was weeded to remove non - native species; no seeds or plants were added. The ground cover for the rest of the oak savanna was prepared and seeded like the prairie. The largest prairie area is in front of the building and merges into the savanna. The prairie areas are not all contiguous and include some fairly narrow swatches. For example, three parking lot islands are from ten to twenty feet wide and up to 280 feet long. Thus, you do not have the feeling of being on a vast expanse of prairie. Instead, it is more akin to a prairie pocket which might have been http: / /www.hort. agri. umn .edu /h5015 /96papers /gayner.htm 2/22/01 • • • St. Jude Medical -- Restoration and Prairie Gardens on a Corporate Site Page 4 of 7 found in the transition zone between prairie and woodland. For species selection and planting the prairie, Hagstrom hired Prairie Restorations, Inc. a Princeton, Minnesota company that has been doing prairie restorations for over 20 years. Hagstrom's design specifications called for a "short dry" prairie, but the moisture capacity of the soil suggested mesic species of a mixed prairie would also be appropriate. The design priorities dictated the choice of the model, and a "short dry" mix was seeded in most of the prairie areas. Some taller grasses were used in select areas and a wet mix was used around the pond and in low spots. The seed order included: Mix Quantity Common Names Scientific Names Blue grama 30 lbs Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Short dry grass 57 lbs Sideoats grama blue grama little bluestem June grass Bouteloua curtipendula Bouteloua gracilis Schizachyrium scoparium Koeleria cristata Mixed height mesic 10 lbs Big bluestem sideoats grama Canada wild rye switch grass little bluestem Indian grass Kalm's brome Andropogon gerardii Bouteloua curtipendula Elymus canadensis Panicum virgatum Schizachyrium scoparium Sorgastrum nutans Bromus kalmii Tallgrass wet 5 lbs Big bluestem Canada wild rye switch grass Indian grass cord grass wool grass Andropogon gerardii Elymus canadensis Panicum virgatum Sorgastrum nutans Spartina pectinata Scirpus cyperinus Forbs 10+ lbs 24 species, mostly dry to mesic, including: yarrow butterfly weed rough blazing star azure aster black -eyed Susan purple prairie clover and others Achillea millefolium Asclepias tuberosa Liatris aspera Aster oolentangiensis Rudbeckia hirta Petalostemum purpureum For part of the prairie, site preparation required removing brush and Acer negundo (boxelder), Ulmus spp. (elm) and Rhamnus cathartica (buckthorn). Other areas were devoid of vegetation http:// www. hort.agri.umn.edu/h5015 /96papers /gayner.htm 2/22/01 St. Jude Medical -- Restoration and Prairie Gardens on a Corporate Site Page 5 of 7 • because of construction and grading. An herbicide was sprayed where necessary to kill existing vegetation. The areas were then tilled and firmed. Seed was both drilled and hand broadcast. After seeding, the site was mulched with little bluestem straw. Since some species do not establish well from seed, over 2500 seedlings were then planted. Fifteen species were planted as seedlings, including forbs such as Amorpha canescens (lead plant), Asclepias incarnata (swamp milkweed), and Phlox pilosa (prairie phlox). The site was not irrigated. A crew from Prairie Restorations, Inc. manages the prairie. It was mowed once the first season (1994) and spot sprayed for thistle. In spring of 1995 and 1996, the prairie and savanna were burned. A two to five year burn cycle will begin in 1997. During the summer of 1995, Rudbeckia and a few other forb species bloomed in the prairie. The planting was still sparse at this time and bare soil was visible. It looked "weedy" but was on track for such a young planting. THE CREEK AND POND To meet the goal of handling storm water on -site, a holding pond was designed. There were seasonal wetlands on the site and one of these was cleared of vegetation, deepened, and reshaped. All runoff from the building roof, parking lots, and sidewalks are channeled to the pond through underground drain tiles or into the landscaped and prairie areas. The pond is in the prairie and savanna so the vegetation around the pond includes wet prairie grasses and forbs. Water from the pond is pumped up to a small pool near the building and flows down a stone creek bed back to the pond. The pump aerates the water in the pond and it is hoped that this aeration will help keep the water clean. The creek, with its two small pools, was installed as a typical small -scale water garden, using plastic liners, landscape fabric, cobblestone and boulders. The vegetation around the pool nearest the building includes Hemerocallis (daylilies) and Hosta. As the creek travels away from the building more native vegetation is prevalent. EVALUATION It is not clear whether there was a formal evaluation process for this project. But the designer continues to visit the site and watch it mature. He receives informal evaluations on the project since his crew maintains the gardens. It is obvious that employees at St. Jude Medical enjoy the grounds. A letter of thanks from the plant manager to Hagstrom expresses the company's enthusiasm: "... thank you for really doing an outstanding job on the Woodridge facility. We receive nothing but complements on the aesthetics of the facility especially of late as things are in full bloom. The Woodridge facility is truly a showcase for St. Jude Medical and we bring many surgeons, public officials, and other dignitaries through this facility and all comment on the aesthetics of our landscaping." Such a complement, of course, says nothing about the success of the restoration of the natural areas. Prairie Restorations, Inc. is satisfied with the progress the prairie is making. Because the landscape is so young, the ecological accomplishments of the project are difficult to assess. It is possible, however, to evaluate whether the designer's goals for a sustainable landscape have been achieved. 1. Requires minimal or no irrigation. The plants in the gardens are drought tolerant. Watering was done the first year to ensure successful establishment, but is no longer necessary. The prairie, savanna, and woodland cover well over 3/4 the site and are not irrigated. Only the turf areas (approximately 1/2 acre) require regular watering. 2. Handles storm water on -site. Thus far, it seems this goal has been met. The holding pond http: / /www.hort. agri. umn .edu /h5015 /96papers /gayner.htm 2/22/01 St. Jude Medical -- Restoration and Prairie Gardens on a Corporate Site Page 6 of 7 receives water from the building and parking lots. The parking lot islands have depressions which enable much of the island runoff to drain slowly into the soil rather than into the parking lot. 3. Uses predominantly native plant materials. The gardens are not intended to be prairie restorations. Thus, it seems appropriate to take liberties in these areas and include non - native species. The prairie, however, contains only plants native to this area. For example, Echinacea purpurea, while used in the gardens, is not found in the prairie since its natural range does not extend this far north. 4. Encourages biodiversity. The plant list includes many species of native trees, shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous fortis. Many of the plants are not commonly available and approximately ten different nurseries were needed to obtain the quantities and types of plants required by the design. More animal species are beginning to inhabit the site. Butterflies, in particular, have been a pleasant surprise to company employees. 5. Invests in healthy soil (no fertilizer and pesticides). In the gardens a shredded bark mulch helps prevent the loss of soil. As the mulch decomposes it acts as a slow release fertilizer. Since most of the garden plants used can flourish in infertile soil, Hagstrom anticipates there will be no need to fertilize the garden areas in the future. No fertilizer is used in the natural areas. The lawn receives an organic fertilizer. 6. Minimizes or eliminates bluegrass lawns. The design has less turf than is typical in most corporate landscapes. It is used in strips and swaths, not in large expanses, and probably covers about one -half acre. For people interested in seeing prairie restorations on these sites, this may still be too much bluegrass. A corporate site provides wonderful opportunities for monitoring and evaluating a restoration. Companies can capitalize on employees' interest and the simple fact that there are many people on site daily to participate in observation and monitoring. An employee -run monitoring program at St. Jude Medical would enable the company to evaluate the ecological success of the natural areas. For example, to track the botanical progress of the restoration, permanant plots could be marked in the prairie and savanna. Inventories of native and exotic plant species could be conducted in these plots and compared over time. Programs to track animal species might also be initiated. For instance, employees and their families could conduct a butterfly count two or three times during the growing season. Once this program is underway, the company could expand it to the immediate neighborhood. It would be interesting to compare the species and numbers of butterflies at St. Jude Medical with nearby yards and parks. There are many possibilities for monitoring. With guidance and training, interested employees can collect data that will help refine management strategies and ensure the success of the natural areas. CRITIQUE The landscape at St. Jude Medical is a wonderful bridge to the natural world. It uses the traditional cues of a formal garden to introduce the prairie plants and then leads one out to the prairie in all its informality. Some may feel this is making unnecessary concessions, that we do not need to shield people from nature. But Hagstrom understands that while most people enjoy plants and gardens, many people are uncomfortable with nature on its own terms. His design capitalizes on peoples' pleasure in plants and encourages them to explore the prairie. This does not mean that a prairie cannot stand alone on a corporate site. It is simply one approach. If one considers only aesthetics, most people will agree that a prairie restoration appears "weedy" and is not terribly attractive the first few years after seeding. The design of this site buys the prairie the years it needs to become spectacular in its own right. The lines of the currant hedge and http: / /www.hort. agri. umn .edu /h5015 /96papers /gayner.htm 2/22/01 St. Jude Medical -- Restoration and Prairie Gardens on a Corporate Site Page 7 of 7 bluegrass lawn draw attention to the formal gardens when they are in bloom. Once the prairie matures, these lines will frame the native prairie and allow it to steal the stage in July, August, and September. Hagstrom's goals for this project were clear. They specified a prairie, a savanna, and gardens -- not a restoration. But the prairie and savanna on this site meet some of the requirements of a restoration. The model of oak savanna was very appropriate for this site. I believe design considerations had more impact than ecology when a "short dry prairie" was prescribed instead of a more mesic prairie with mixed tall and short grasses. It will be interesting to see if, over time, the taller grasses move into the short dry prairie. This restoration has structural integrity -- the plant materials fit the models and regional ecotypes were generally used. In addition, this landscape replicates some of the functions of an ecosystem such as handling water, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity. However, because the restored areas are small and not necessarily contiguous, the site cannot function as an ecosystem. Focusing on the plant material, and not the large scale ecosystem dynamics seems very appropriate for this project. The only thing that I question in this corporate landscape is the creek. Most of the site is bold and challenges us to expand our view of urban and suburban landscapes. The creek seems a concession to a romantic view of nature. With its stone edges cutting between the prairie and the woodland, it is more a back -yard water garden than a creek. One could argue that a romanticized approach to nature has a cultural and historical place in American life, and is appropriate here. (The true romantics are blind to the huge pump in the savanna that carries water to the head of the creek.) But, for me, the style of the creek detracts from the honesty and integrity of the rest of the design. It is possible that as the native vegetation along the creek matures there will be a more natural merging of rock and vegetation. A more deliberate transition zone from Hosta and Hemerocallis into the prairie might also help. CONCLUSION The landscape at St. Jude Medical is exciting and ambitious. The company had the courage to try something different and the wisdom to have specialists design, install, and maintain it. Hagstrom brought his love of native plants together with a sensitivity to human needs and perceptions. He has designed a truly inviting landscape that both gives pleasure and educates. Though some would not call this landscape a restoration, it helps one understand the continuum from garden to restoration. REFERENCES Information for this case study came from discussions with landscape architect Jim Hagstrom, reviewing project notes and blueprints, and site visits in August 1995 and April 1996. Return to the Restoration & Reclamation Review Home Page http: / /www.hort. agri. umn .edu /h5015 /96papers /gayner.htm 2/22/01 • • INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL Agenda Item 6C PROJECT #: 21 -5a PROJECT: 2001 Goals/Environmental Board DATE OF ORIGIN: TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: 'Attached are the 1999 and 2000 goals. •Review past goals • •Formulate 2001 goals STAFF COMMENTS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: •Urban Interface Program •Staff Time Board at the January 312001 •..Several Draft goals and the notion of focused review issues were discussed. Attached is the summary from Chair Scott Lanyon.. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the • Environmental Board Members, Here are our assignments for the next board meeting: Amy—Vegetation; Lighting • Connie — Impervious Surfaces; Ground Cover 17apxo_ &_PeXpearto v_Boap& Xtra o0 Aavo AaKeo Dave —Tree Preservation; Vegetation Mike — Stormwater Infiltration and Treatment; Lighting Rod — Impervious Surfaces; Buffers Scott-Tree Preservation; Stormwater Infiltration and Treatment Tere —Soil Treatment; Buffers What I intend to do is to go through this list for each project. I'll ask if there are any additional recommendations or questions regarding TREE PRESERVATION. Once we've dealt with that Pll move on to BUFFERS and so on. If you have specific recommendations that you can write out in advance of the meeting that would move things along even more quickly and efficiently. To prepare for our new roles, I encourage all of you to follow Dave's advice and take it upon yourself to learn more about the topics for which you have volunteered. Here is my attempt to summarize the goals that we discussed. You'll note that I eliminated WEB SITE as a goal and instead made it one of the potential activities that fall within GOAL #2. I welcome your feedback and editorial comments. GOAL #l. Educate developers about the benefits of including prairie gardens in their landscape designs. Potential Activity — Provide developers with the opportunity to see examples of blooming prairie gardens and to talk with the people who "maintain" them. GOAL #2. Increase citizen understanding and appreciation Lino Lakes' unique environmental qualities. Potential Activities— create a web site Pilot Restoration Project Update Environmental Board Packet Encourage landscaping companies to advertise in city Investigate possibility of using the "City Wagon" GOAL #3. Identify and pursue preservation of, unique environmental assets of the city. Potential Activity -- Promote the preservation of the property located on the north side of Lino Lakes Elementary. GOAL #4. Restructure monthly meetings to preserve 50% (one hour) of the meeting to advance our proactive goals. Potential Activity — assign responsibilities (e.g., tree preservation, buffers) to individual board members 17ap,c &_PcxpeazaovBoap& XU 00 Aivo Rams GOAL #5. Increase communication with analogous units in other metro -area cities to avoid "re- inventing the wheel" and to look for collaborative opportunities. Potential Activity — develop a list of cities that have groups focused on the environment Host a social event that brings these groups together to share ideas, goals, and experiences. GOAL #6. Investigate and promote the possibility of developing a conservation development ordinance for the city. Potential Activity —get examples of such ordinances from other cities. GOAL #7. Develop and implement a strategy to obtain more resources (staff and financial) to enable the city to establish itself as the leader in the metro area in terms of development that is both economically and environmentally intelligent. GOAL #8. Communicate more regularly, and more directly, with City Council. Once we've reached agreement about the wording of these goals, I would like to request time at one of the City Council meetings to present these goals and to ask the Council if they have any goals that they would like us to pursue. Finally, Marty could you make certain that you include a copy of the Developer's Guidelines that the Board wrote, with the next meeting packet? ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus was reached by the Board: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No FINAL VOTE DATE: Ilapiccr &_Pezpeartov_Boap& Xtn oq Acvo Awcecr DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): •.... pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE:.... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): •.... pending . COUNCIL ACTION DATE:.... pending .... PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations related to actual implementation. This includes issues raised (and resolved) during implementation, general observations, and project outcome. •.... pending .... PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE :.... pending .... ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date 17apxo_ &_Pe%psa rs o vBoap& Xcri_oq5 Atvo Aaxso- • • INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL Agenda Item 7A -1 PROJECT #: 21 -10 Conservation Partners Grant / Buckthorn PROJECT: Grant Application To The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources To Initiate a Buckthorn Eradication Program In the City of Lino lakes. DATE OF ORIGIN: February 28, 2001 TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: • Buckthorn is a non - native invasive woodland woody plant that removes bio- diversity, is a prolific seeder, and obscures visibility and the aesthetic qualities of our woodlands. •The City of Lino Lakes is currently at the initial stages of buckthorn management in the Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition, and has interest from residents in the Birchwood Acres Subdivision (See map). •Follow -up will be needed in both cases. Working with residents on the follow -up and monitoring would be part of this grant proposal. •This is an excellent opportunity to begin a hands -on environmental education program with expansion to other issues. STAFF COMMENTS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: • 50 % cost share proposal/ Proposal due March 30, 2001. • 50 % city share would be soft-share (labor, chemicals, volunteers) ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the Board: 17apxo_& Pexpeazcov_Boap5 Xtzt 00 Aivo Awcea ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION/POSITION STATEMENT: The following consensus was reached by the Board: FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member Yes No FINAL VOTE DATE: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending .... DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION DATE: .... pending :... COUNCIL ACTION (IF NECESSARY): 1.... pending .... COUNCIL ACTION DATE: .... pending .... PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The following defines staff observations related to actual implementation. This includes issues raised (and resolved) during implementation, general observations, and project outcome. 1.... pending PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION DATE: .... pending .... ENVIRONMENTAL Coordinator Date Ilapro_ &_Pexpea at o v_Boaps XtU o9 Atvo AarcecT CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT PROGRAM METRO REGION ONLY FY 2002 REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS DEADLINE: 30 March 2001 * This application is for the 7- county Metro area only. * Direct any pre - application questions to Sharon Pfeifer, Metro DNR (651- 772 - 7982). * Submit the completed application form and attachments in triplicate by US mail to: Conservation Partners Grant Program Metro DNR, Attention: Sharon Peifer 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 1. Project Title 2. Lead Organization 3. Project Lead - Name/Title 4. Address 5. Phone Fax Email 6. Total Project Cost $ 7. Amount of Grant Requested $ ($1,000 min, $20,000 max) 8. If a restoration project is proposed, has the site to be restored been identified in a local comprehensive or water plan, or has the site been identified by a comprehensive natural resources inventory as in need of restoration? No Yes Give plan(s) and year? PROJECT SUMMARY 9. Project Purpose - For Restoration Projects: Explain in fewer than 100 words the existing condition of the site to be restored and to what type habitat you are proposing to restore the area. Of what benefit is the restoration to your local community and to the larger Metro region? For Research Projects: Explain in fewer than 100 words why the proposed research is needed and how it will be useful to future restoration efforts. 10. DNR Assistance - Who have you contacted at the DNR to receive technical information about the proposed research or restoration effort? Staff person contacted When 11. Project Location (this information must be filled out for mapping purposes) County_ Municipality Township and Section(s) Required Attachment #1: Map clearly showing the scale, directional orientation, project boundaries, adjacent land uses, and major roads to the project area, 12. Project Dimensions (acres; linear feet;) 13. Proposed Time Line: Start Date after 7 /1/01 12/20/2000 06:24 6124018798 • Wr Fax KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 01 KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Pmmd ig Sound &bo x le4 Carry vhensive NWurd Resource Sc kw s TO: NAME COMPANY FAX NUMBER Marty A. City of Lino Lakes 851 -982 -2499 CC: Mike Quigley Penta 763 - 7556311 FROM: NAME DATE # of pages (Including this page) Mark Kjoihaug 12/20/00 4 RE: Clearwater Creek 31O — Natural Area Restoration and Management Plan RI FYI 0 For Your Review 0 Please Reply 0 As we DIscu.s.d • Comments: Marty — I am forwarding an update of our restoration project for you review. Considerable progress was made this year, however, problems with weather prevented us from completing all year l project goals. Please call with questions. Mark 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 2 -401 -8757, Fax: 612-401-8798 12/20/2000 06:24 6124018798 FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 02 PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 Dec. 19 2000 12:S4PM P1 I aiitw�ritit►g December.19; 2000 Mark Kjolhaug ,Kjolhaug Environmental Services 26105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood, .MN 55331.:. Dear Mark, • t� update you about,the native plant community restoration WOrliAttClearWater Creek. I must first note. this is a large and unusual • Project for various reasons. The characteristics of the project are ref1r tine .` of the landscape within. the:projeCt:area,..varicd and nondescript.. We knew entering into this project there were. going to be issues'with weather'and•thus* • soil conditions, that may effect our ability to get stages :of:the project• complete. • the::project is moving along .fine. After. delving :into the project We: that this project would not advance,' in terms of a restoration ocesSeS;:'tonventionally: The maj r1 y of the project entails re- vegetation :• ofaround'.20 acres of existing wetlands currently infested with Reed :Canary .. . Grass.. Reed Canary i9 an exotic..grass used for forage. It is a.prol.ific.seed producer and.re- grows vigorously from its roots, even after multiple herbicide treatment. Generally, as : was in' this project, it grows in wetlands that range from seasonally wet to Year round saturation. As you. would 'expect due to its high forage .characteristics; Recd. leaves a .. ..: . significant amount of residual materials that needs to'be dealt. With before: planting. seed: A prescribed burn is by far the most desired method tor removal of residual plant material. This method has added benefits' of exposing the .topsoil: for proper seed to soil contact as well as providing for effective herbicide 11754 Jr.arvta 4 ,..NW , ..A pwroi►da a, MW SS3•2 - (3..?S)274- ya1.6. f far .(3`21)374 -3■87 12/20/2000 06:24 6124018798 FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 03 PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 Dec. 19 2000 12 : 55PM P2 application.: Normally, when entering a project with demands like these, the first step is to burn the dead material in the spring before there is new growth that will inhibit a clean bum. Since the project was given to us "after" this spring window, the next step was to use chemical to kill and thus create conditions that would enable us to burn early summer. Unfortunately, the site was a little to wet early on to get spray equipment on site and effectively kill the Reed Canary grass. In the meantime while we waited for the dry down of the wetlands we worked on exotic brush control in the understory of most of the woodland set- asides. This was done in stages to provide the best results. First, the smallest saplings of Buckthorn, Honeysuckle and Prickly Ash were cut off at about 2 feet to put all on equal height level and make eventual herbicide treatment easier. The idea was that the saplings would leaf out at the same height and make herbicide to plant contact most efficient. Secondly, in mid summer we proceeded further with brush control by cutting all saplings of invasive exotic species noted above, then stump treating each one with Garton Herbicide. The process was .methodical and labor intensive but I feel very effective in controlling and reducing the existing plants of these undesirable species. However, it most be noted, this does not effect new growth that may potentially occur from an existing seed bank. When we got back to work on the wetlands we were in late summer and into a drought. This was fortunate in that it allowed us full access to all the now dry wetlands with our spray equipment. It was unfortunate though, because once we sprayed and killed existing the vegetation a burn ban was put on statewide, preventing us from accomplishing this very important step in the restoration process. So we waited. Unfortunately time ran out on us this fall to bum and thus properly prepare the site for an effective installation of all the restorative materials. In many ways this works out fine for us and for the ultimate 12/20/2000 06:24 6124018798 FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PROlRIES CO KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 04 PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 Dec. 19 2000 12:55PM P3 • success of the project. Because of the size and condition of this project a longer time line should have been drawn into the original plans. The initial time line to install the project was one season. This was in retrospect, pushing the limits of what could be effectively done with a site of this magnitude, considering the size of the project area and the massive infestation of hearty exotic and invasive species. In the spring of 2001 the first task to be performed will be a prescribed burn. After .a period of time has elapsed sufficient to allow re- growth from seed or residual roots systems, a final herbicide treatment will be applied. Anytime after the final herbicide treatment all native plant materials will be installed using the most effective method given the precise landscape involved (drilling send with Truax drill whereever accessible, broadcasting seed when less accessible). After the initial installation we will monitor the site for. further management issues. 1 hope the elongated timeline we are now dealing with has not created an inconvenience or caused any problems with any of the parties involved, including, Gorem, The city of Lino Lakes or Kjolhaug Environmental I assure you, although this project may be running longer than originally thought, it will be completed and completed successfully. If any members of the parties noted above need more clarification about this letter, l would be well disposed to answer any questions ask to me regarding any aspect of this project. Sincerely__ Tony Rieger -Borer President 02/14/2001 07 :18 9524018798 Fax KJOLHAUG ENV PAGE 01 KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Plovdiv Saud Balanced, ComprahensNe Natural Resource Sotutbns TO: NAME COMPANY FAX NUMBER Marty A City of Lino Lakes 651 -982 -2499 CC: FROM: NAME DATE # of pages (including this page) Mark Kjolhaug 2/14/01 5 RE: Clearwater Creek Greenways project ❑ FYI ❑ For Your Review ❑ Please Reply Ei As We Discussed • Comments: Marty Pages 1 and 2 are work done to date. Pages A and B are costs for what needs to be done yet. Please call with questions. Mark 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952 -401 -8757, Fax: 952 -401 -8798 02/14/2001 07:18 9524018798 KJOLHAUG ENV FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO PHCNE NO. : 320 274 5316 IL`s is k u )14 BILL TO KJolhaug Enviromnental Services Paul .KJolhaug 17465 2nd st sw Cokato, MN 35321 5 4.c1 4 ;7- b4 er c>lon e_ o,She, P.O. NUMBER TERMS Due on receipt QUANTITY ITEM CODE REP 7.5 7.5 7.5 10 10 ,4 Brush removal Spraying Spraying Spraying . Spraying Spraying TRB PAGE 02 Feb. 13 2001 02:16PM P4 SHIP TO DATE 11/29/2000 INVOICE #7 2625 SHIP 12/29/2000 VIA F.O.B. DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH PROJECT • Clearwater Creek AMOUNT Woodland Mm mgement Activities Cutting bask brush in woodland gteenways. this will give equal hies throughoutt to allow for more efficient ovarapray of "(iarlon" herbicide for woody plants. Applying Oarl'm herbicide to newly emerging understory brush. Applying Geri. m for 2nd time if necessary. Buffet Strips Applying Rod( o herbicide to existing vt jtation at proposed aroa. Applying Rod( o and Plateau hccabicido to proposed area. Newly create(. Retention Ponds Applying Round -up and Plateau herbicida to existing vegitatlon at proposed arse. Reed Canary wetlands. (1 came up with approximately 15 acres) NAPCO requires 25% down on all projt cis before any wok will performed. Page 1 Total 300.00 2,250.00 200.00 1,500.00 200.00 1,500.00' 135.00 1,350.00 150.00 1.500.00 105.00 420.00 02/14/2001 07:18 9524018798 FROM = NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIE: CO • • KJOLHAUG ENV PHCNE NO. : 320 274 5316 BILL TO KjoThaug Environmental Services Paul Kjolhau►g 17465 2nd st sw Cokato, MN 55321 P.O. NUMBER QUANTITY 15 15 TERMS Due on receipt • ITEM CODE Mowing Spraying Spraying REP TRB SHIP TO PAGE 03 Feb. 13 2001 02:16PM P5 DATE 11/29/2000 INVOICE # 2625 SHIP VIA F.O.B. 12/29/2000 DESCRIPTION Mow fire bretics. Applying Ra to herbicide to existing vegetation at proposed ants. Applying Ror len► and Plateau (for control of Recd Canary) herb, eidC to existing vegltation at proposal a rea. Sales Tax NAPCO requires 25% down on all pre jests before any a or k. will perfbrnaed. PRICE EACH PROJECT [Th Clearwater Creek AMOUNT 1,000.00 135.00 • 150.00 6.50% Total Page 2 1,000.00 2,025.00 2,250.00 0.00 $1 3,795.00 02/14/2001 07:18 9524018798 FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIE CO KJOLHAUG ENV PHCNE NO. : 320 274 5316 PAGE 04 Feb. 13 2001 02:15PM P2 4e e 'Iv- - ` tt 3 n `1*eh^"' ve -o ../0 ill rt/ .e.;4-&- A , . .,. DATE I ORTI -I 41ER ICAN 1R4IRIE5 Pmhuer,hook Skim fNas Ras Cammuer it NAME /ADDRESS Kjjolhaug Environmental Services Paul IS,jolhaug 17465 2nd st sw , . Cokato, MN 55321' ITEM loins n Droying 4dcavtin8 e rowing enrass nth at'FIowecs 6 or Hours dyer atcwardsivp • REP DESCRIPTION 03/03/2000 i DUE DATE 03/03/2000 Shipping Orde... 1287..__... PROJECT 1 Clearwater Creek QTY Mow firc books. Applying Rodo hcrbidde to ct fisting vegltation at proposed area. . Applying Rodeo and Plateau (tar control of Recd Canary) herbicide to existing veg"ttation at proposed area. Lightly harrow in grass and tic At a rate of"! lbs per sere At a rate aP 3 Ibs per acre The Reed Canariwetlands wi wcther a broadleaf herbicide s flowers. Or if the bum and sp disturb the site further, rather patches, Total labor hours for installarl Management of site the follow represent the best estimate the Stewardship Includes burn and follow up w wc-r seed. 1 be judged after ntidal burn and spray. as to tnuld be used and thus wait till fall to install the Iay releases some frcisting natives then we will not tpctt manage the si .e fi +r rooaxiring Recd Canary 'n and stewatd4hi1, ing 2 years. Then umbers that will follow will :I can give fbr nos'. xxJ cxmtrol. 1 need some room on this estivate Ayr unknowns Sales Tax tPCO requires 25% dotvn on all projects,, bcfon : any work will pet formed. Page 2 Total • RATE TOTAL 1 I,000.00 1, 15 200.00 3, 15 135.00 2.025. 15 150.00 2.250. 15 58.00 870. 15 69.00 , 1,035, 105 40.00 4,200. 45 185.00 8.325, 30 65.00 4,000,00 5,000.00 6.50% 1,950. 4,000. 5,000. 1,638. 02/14/2001 07:18 9524018798 KJOLHAUG ENV FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO PHCNE NO. :•320 274 5316 'f <ACFZCtrj uata,•.1y t< thy land lithiMr,Aoekrani cradofNuielLmfinem is fNAME /ADDRESS Kjolhaug Environmental Services Paul Kjolhaug 17465 2nd st sw Coknto, MN 55321 REP ITEM rowing ling chistg c Anchor tying ling iic grass grass mix Flowers :ic Flowers :ins rowing • tying ling thing c Anchor lying ling .ic grass de Flowers gas's mix Flowers • DESCRIPTION PAGE 05 Feb. 13 2001 02:15PM P3 • DATE Shipping Orde... 03/03/2000 1 • 1287 DUE DATE. 03/03/2000 PROJECT Clearwater Creek Light disoing Drill grass with Truax drill Straw Mulching hill side for c rosion control Applying Curtail to existing v !giraation at proposed arca. Drill flowers (Some wetland i raves) with Brillion style seeder from late summer. to snowfirll. To be used at a rate of 8 lea p r acre and mixed'vith the .vet mix to provide the best possible diversity. To be mixed with the,Meele n ix at a rate of 21b c per acre. Various flowers. . Various flower Newly created Retention Pon N Applying Round -up and Plate, u herbicide to exit ting vegtttttion at proposed area. Drill grass with Truax drill Straw Mulching hill side fee e 'ASiOn control Applying Curtail broadleaf he, bioidc to weeds le;giving 8'aases uncf%ctcd. Drill flowers with brillion styl :seeder. To he used in the upland bufil rs. Various flowers To be used lr Hydrio soils aro+ :r d wetland perim :ter. Recd Canary wetlands. (1 came • up with approximately 15 sacs) ►PCO requires 25% down an all projects, before any work will per formed. QTY 10 Page 1 Total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 80 20 15 15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 9' 10 .3 RATE TOTAL 300.00 3,000. 95.00 950. 69.00 117.00 1 : 400.00 4,000. 70.00 700, 125,00 1,250. 117.00 1,170. 14.00 1,120. 40.00 800. 185.00 2,773. 150:00 2,250. 95.00 380. 69.00 276. 105.00 420, 117.00 400.00 70.00 105.00 117.00 14.00 150.00 40:00 185.00 468. 1,600. 250. 420. 468 560. 1,350. 400. 555, Expected Completion Date 14. Summary of Key Proposed Activities - Required Attachment #2: Outline in a one to two page work plan the 1) key activities to be performed, 2) who will carry out each activity, 3) methodologies used, 4) time frame for carrying out the project and 5) final quantifiable deliverables. Planting lists must be provided for restoration projects. 15. Project Partners - List key partners involved with the project implementation. Required Attachment #3: Signed and dated letters from partners contributing to the match amount shown below (cash or in -kind) must accompany this application. Also required are descriptions of qualifications of individuals conducting natural resource research or restoration. Partner Organization & Phone Number Proposed Key Activities Lead Person(s) on Activity(ies) Match Amount and Type 16. Application and /or Dissemination of Project Outputs - As explicitly as possible describe how the results of this project (research or restoration) will be disseminated (e.g., publication, videos, signs). 17. Budget -50:50 non -state match required Matching contributions can be in -kind or cash; cash contributions must be non -state funds. The total matching contribution must equal or exceed the total grant requested. For Our Information: Are you or a project partner applying through the DNR to any of the following grant programs? Metro Greenways Planning Grant Yes __No Amount $______ Community Environmental Partnership Yes No Amount $ Natural and Scenic Areas? Yes_ No Amount $ MnReLeaf? Yes_ No__ Amount $ Cooperative Trail Linkages? Yes No. Amount $ Key Activity Key Activity Key Activity Key Activity Key Activity Grant$ Match Grant$ Match Grant $ Match Grant$ Match Grant$ Match Wages; salaries, and benefits Staff Volunteers Consultants Phone, mail Printing Space rental Equipment/ Supplies Mileage, 0.255/mi Matching contributions can be in -kind or cash; cash contributions must be non -state funds. The total matching contribution must equal or exceed the total grant requested. For Our Information: Are you or a project partner applying through the DNR to any of the following grant programs? Metro Greenways Planning Grant Yes __No Amount $______ Community Environmental Partnership Yes No Amount $ Natural and Scenic Areas? Yes_ No Amount $ MnReLeaf? Yes_ No__ Amount $ Cooperative Trail Linkages? Yes No. Amount $ Minnesota DNR - Financial Assistance Directory 1999 -2001 Page 1 of 1 dt.x Eve minerris ind Conservation Partners and Environmental Partnerships Grant Programs - Regional Contacts Contact Information and Maps Region Area 1 Northwest - Bemidji 11 Northeast - Grand Rapids III Central - Brainerd IV Southwest - New Ulm V Southeast - Rochester VI Metro Contact Information Jeff Asfoor, Regional Planner 6603 Bemidji Ave N Bemidji, MN 56601 Jim Weseloh, Regional Planner 1201 E Hwy 2 Grand Rapids, MN 55744 Jack Olson, Regional Planner 1601 Minnesota Dr Brainerd, MN 56401 Mark Lindquist, Regional Planner 261 Hwy 15S New Ulm, MN 56073 Denis Allen, Regional Planner 2300 Silver Creek Rd NE Rochester, MN 55906 Sharon Pfeifer, Regional Planner 1200 Warner Rd St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 218.755.3954 Fax: 218.755.4417 Phone: 218.327.4127 Fax: 218.327.4263 Phone: 218.828.2701 Fax: 218.828.2437 Phone: 507.359.6034 Fax: 507.359.6018 Phone: 507.280.5058 Fax: 507.285.7144 Phone: 651.772.7982 Fax: 651.772.7977 DNR Information Center 500 Lafaverte Road St. Paul. MN 55155 4040 d.rivins4 directions Phone: 651 -296 -6157 or 888- MINNUNR TTY: 651- 296 - 54114 or 800 -657 -3929 For DNR into: info@dnr.state.mn.us Site Comments: w 'ebmaster fi dnr.state.mn.us Contents © 2000 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved. http: / /www.dnr.state.mn.us /omb /financial assistance /cons_contacts.html 2/13/01 Minnesota DNR - Financial Assistance Directory 1999 -2001 Page 1 of 2 Eii Comments. CONTENTS Habitat Improvement Environmental Partnerships Grant Program Conservation Partners Grant Program Deer Habitat Improvement Program (DHIP) Eurasian Watermilfoil Management Program Grants for Conservation Biology Research in Minnesota Pheasant Habitat Improvement Program (PHIP) Project CORE (Cooperative Opportunities for Resource Enhancement Program) Roadsides for Wildlife Conservation Partners Grant Program Program Purpose: To encourage the enhancement of fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats and research and surveys of fish and wildlife directly related to specific habitat improvement projects through cooperation by private organizations and local governments. Eligible Projects: Projects fall into two categories: 1. Habitat Enhancement - Habitat Enhancement projects include but are not limited to: restoration of natural plant communities, reforestation, protection of wetlands, establishing native plant buffer strips along streams and lakes, protection of water quality, abatement of soil erosion, and other practices consistent with sound wildlife management. 2. Research/Surveys - Research/Survey projects include but are not limited to: monitoring environmental indicators; surveying plant and animal populations; evaluating enhancement projects; and researching methods to conserve or enhance fish, wildlife and native plant habitat. These research/survey projects must be directly related to specific habitat improvement projects. Ineligible projects include funding for curricula development, existing organizational staff and program activities, or capital development such as buildings and trails. Project Examples. Who May Apply: Private organizations, counties, cities, townships, and school districts. Priorities: Cooperative efforts among local governments, school districts, and private organizations and creative projects that meet the program purpose. Projects are selected based on regional priorities. Level of Assistance: A maximum of 50% of the total eligible project costs not to exceed a maximum grant of $20,000. The minimum grant amount is $1,000. Costs must be incurred and paid before reimbursement can be made. General Information: Applications are due by March 31. Grant http: / /www.dnr. state. mn. us/ omb/ financial_assistance /conspart.html 2/13/01 Minnesota DNR - Financial Assistance Directory 1999 -2001 Program Wildlife Damage Management Program Page 2 of 2 awards will be announced in the summer. Projects must ordinarily be completed within 18 months. How to Apply: Contact the region in which the project will be located or download the appropriate application form for projects within the 7 county 'Irvin Cities metro area or outside the Metro area. Related DNR Programs: Environmental Partnerships Grant Program. Metro Greenways Planning Grants Program Minnesota Re Leaf Program Other Related Programs: Environmental Assistance (.Grant Program Office of Environmental Assistance, Grant Program Phone: 651.296.3417 or 800.657.3843 I)NR hrforrnation Center 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul. MN 55155 -4040 driving directions Phone: 651 -296 -6157 or 888 -M INN DN R TIN: 651- 296 -5484 or 800 - 657 -3929 For DNR Into: info nr.state.rnn.us Site Comments: ‘vebniaster@dnr.state.mn.us Contents © 2000 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources..A11 rights reserved. http: / /www.dnr. state. mn. us /omb/ financial _assistance /cons_part.html 2/13/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 1 of 11 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Forests Samuel W. Gale Introduction Common or European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica L.) is a deciduous shrub, or small tree, of the Rhamnaceae family that readily invades woodland, savannah, and prairie habitats. An endemic of Eurasia, R. cathartica was introduced to North America as an ornamental shrub in the mid 1800s and was originally used for hedges, farm shelter belts, and wildlife habitat. It has spread extensively since and has a range currently bound by Nova Scotia, Canada in the northeast, Saskatchewan, Canada in the northwest, northeastern Kansas, USA in the southwest, and North Carolina, USA in the southeast (Meader 1999). Disturbed deciduous forest edges and open oak woodlands seem to be most susceptible to invasion by R. cathartica. Most alarming is the speed with which it is able to invade an area and displace native vegetation. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of R. cathartica's biology and life history, the ecosystem it is invading, and the various control methods currently being used by restoration practitioners to halt its invasion. Biology R. cathartica grows from two to eight meters tall (six to 25 feet) (Figure 1) (MNDNR 2000). It has an irregular spreading crown and a dark gray to brownish rough, scaly bark at maturity. Leaves are usually opposite, elliptic or oblong shaped with fine, round toothed or nearly smooth margins and dark green on the upper side contrasting with a lighter green underside (Samuels 1996). The three to four main branching veins on each side of the midrib that strongly curve or arch forward towards the tip of the leaf are one of the more recognizable morphological features (Figure 2) (OVMA 2000). Identification of R. cathartica is especially easy by the end of the growing season as the leaves persist on the branch well into early winter, maintaining a dark green appearance even after several frosts (Meader 1999). The tips of branches as well as branch forks are typically spiked with spines ranging from 0.5 cm to 5.5 cm (Figure 3) (Zomlefer 1994). R. cathartica is dioecious. In the spring, small (1.5 -2.5 mm), greenish - yellow, four -lobed flowers emerge. Staminate (male) flowers grow in clusters of two to eight flowers with four stamens in each flower. Carpellate (female) inflorescence usually lack petals and grow in clusters of two to 15 flowers (USGS 2000). Beginning around five years of age, R. cathartica is capable of producing fruit classified as drupes (Archibold et al. 1997). Fruit develop in early summer and mature in mid to late fall. Each drupe typically contains four hard, round seeds and turn from green to dark purple to black at maturity. The seeds and fruit are considered poisonous to humans and other animals. If eaten, the drupes cause severe stomach cramps (Converse 1985). Although R. catharica is capable of asexual reproduction, its primary means of reproducing is via seed. Figure 1. Five meter tall mature male R. cathartica tree (foreground and center) with foliage still persisting on branches after three weeks of consistent freezing temperatures (all photos in this report were taken Nov. 27, 2000 in south Minneapolis, MN near Minnehaha Creek). http: / /www.hort. agri. umn .edu /h5015 /00papers /gale.htm 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 2 of 11 Figure 2. Senescing R. cathartica leaves. Notice characteristic arching pattern of the main branching veins. Figure 3. Lateral spikes along the length of a young branch stand out against the brown, scaly bark background of the trunk. http://wvvw.hort.agri.umn.edu/h5015/00papers/gale.htm 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 3 of 11 • Life History Once the production of fruit has begun, the inevitable profusion of progeny is nearly impossible to control as the seeds are readily dispersed in a number of ways and remain viable for several years. Many of the fruit drop below the parent plant and germinate within the immediate vicinity. Some fruit are washed away with heavy rains and germinate where they settle (Gill and Howell 1984). R. cathartica fruit have been known to float for 3 -6 days before sinking (TNC 1995). Insects, birds, and small mammals, such as, voles, mice and other rodents, are also potential vectors (USGS 2000). • • In particular, avian dispersion of seed greatly enhances the invasiveness of R. cathartica. Studies show that the majority of seed dispersed from a parent tree may be attributed to birds (Haber 1998). Several bird species, such as American robins, European starlings, blue jays, and cedar waxwings eat the drupes off mature trees when alternative food sources are depleted (Gourley and Howell 1984). According to several studies, most birds do not prefer R. cathartica drupes as they contain harsh unpalatable chemicals (Maw 1981). However, by late fall avian consumption of the fruit becomes increasingly common (Haber 1998, Rebuffoni 1997). Relatively few of the ingested seeds are destroyed in the digestive tract of the animals while the rest are carried away and redistributed intact (Howland 1996). The chemical compound found in the drupe mesocarp that is responsible for inducing the laxative effect is anthraquinone (Archibold et al. 1997). Quick passage of R. cathartica seed through the digestive tracts of animals is the result. Research also suggests that the seeds germinate more quickly after the fleshy fruit has experienced a degree of digestion (Gourley and Howell 1984). Interestingly, a study examining the effect of exotic shrub species on songbird nest predation found that American robins preferably nested in R. cathartica and also experienced a significantly higher daily mortality rate than those nesting in Crataegus sp., a native shrub species (Schmidt and Whelan 1999). This study suggests that, ironically, a native bird species appears to be enhancing the invasive capabilities of R. cathartica, which in turn serves as an ecological trap for the birds. An extended growing season likely gives R. cathartica a competitive advantage over native plant species as well. Harrington et al. (1989) showed that R. cathartica's leaves remain on the tree an average of 58 days longer than its native counterparts, Cornus racemosa and Prunus serotina. Its leaves emerge earlier and senesce later. In both cases, upper canopy foliage is largely absent. Consequently, photosynthesis under high light availability conditions is significantly greater for R. cathartica than for native shrub species. Indeed, 27 to 35 percent of R. cathartica's annual carbon gain occurs before C. racemosa leaf emergence (Harrington et al. 1989). Allelopathy may also contribute to R. cathartica invasiveness. Some observations indicate that R. cathartica possesses allelopathic chemicals within the fruit and leaf structures (Boudreau and Wilson 1992). Allelopathic chemicals act as a germination or growth inhibitor to other organisms that could potentially occupy the affected area. The presence of these chemicals improves R. cathartica's chance of survival by eliminating some or all of its competition. Preliminary studies by Krebach and Wilson (1996) suggest that the flesh of the drupes contain terpenoids or alkaloids which are capable of retarding the growth of competing plants. The extent to which R. cathartica's release of allelopathic chemicals to the soil accounts for native plant displacement has yet to be determined. A greenhouse experiment measuring the fitness of native species grown in soils varying in allelopathic chemical content would help to illuminate the degree to which allelopathy contributes to R. cathartica's competitive superiority. Ecosystem Affected R. cathartica seems to do best in well -lit, well - drained areas, but is tolerant of a broad range of soil types (neutral to alkaline, sandy or clayey soils) and light conditions (TNC 1995). Across its range, R. cathartica is a particularly problematic invasive of deciduous forest communities. For example, the eastern deciduous forest community, found throughout much of the American portion of its range, has experienced extensive invasion. Some eastern deciduous forest tree species include Quercus alba, Q. rubra, Q. macrocarpa, Acer saccharum, Tilia americana, Ulmus americana, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Celtis occidentalis, Juglans nigra, Carya cordiformis, and many others (Gleason and Cronquist 1963). By reducing recruitment of the above http: / /www.hort. agri. umn.edu /h5015 /00papers /gale.htm 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 4 of 11 tree species and crowding out the native herbaceous species found in the understory (e.g., Thalictrum dioicum, T dasycarpum, Sanguineria canadensis, Trillium grandiflorum, Maiaenthemum canadense, Trientalis borealis, Uvularia grand j7ora, Polygonatum commutatum), R. cathartica has altered in a short period of time the vegetation composition of those forest communities it has invaded. Besides the primary concern for the degradation of natural areas and urban landscapes, R. cathartica poses an additional threat when proximate to agricultural fields. It is the alternate host of the crown rust fungus, Puccinia coronata, which, under wet conditions, can severely reduce oat field yields (Munkvold 1996). Control Methods Due to its prolific nature, R. cathartica is a difficult exotic species to eradicate. Several types of control are currently being used and tested in areas affected. They include mechanical, physical (use of fire), and chemical methods of control. There is no clear consensus on the most effective means of control, but herbicide application to a newly cut stump seems to be an emerging preference. These methods must often be employed repetitively because of R. cathartica's persistent re- sprouting ability. The capacity for extended dormancy in R. cathartica seeds, an average of 6 years, also necessitates the use of repetitive treatments (Archibold et al. 1997). In most restoration efforts, a combination of at least two of these methods is utilized. Mechanical The most environmental friendly and time - consuming method of R cathartica removal is via mechanical means (MNDNR 2000). If resources are limited, initial efforts should be concentrated on removing the female, or fruit producing, trees. This will at least minimize addition to the existing seed bank, thus reducing the amount of time spent in the future on seedling removal. Removal of trees with a base diameter of up to seven cm can be accomplished with commercially available jaw -type pullers known as "weed wrenches" or "broom pulls" (Ness 1989). Those individuals with a base diameter larger than seven cm will likely have to be cut with a chain saw or hand saw and the remaining stump dug out with a shovel. If the stump is left in the ground then subsequent visits to remove any re- sprouting will be necessary. Seedlings that are less than 1 meter (m) tall can usually be pulled by hand. Pulling trees up from the roots will prevent them from re- sprouting and avoid the need for further treatment. Hand pulling is most effective immediately after significant rainfall when the ground is well saturated. Wet soil allows for most of the root to be removed with minimum effort (Rebuffoni 1992). Safety measures should always be taken to avoid injury when removing the trees. Experts advise using safety goggles and thick work gloves to protect against the thorns (Rebuffoni 1997). In areas where there are large numbers of seedlings, mowing can reduce plant number and vigor (USGS 2000). Mowing is done in early June and late August for three consecutive years and usually results in a reduction in stem height and numbers. Unfortunately, mowing can also impair the development of native forb species as well. In addition, mowing will not remove R. cathartica from the area; it will only keep populations under control and prevent the trees from producing fruit. Any time fruit bearing trees are cut after the fruit has ripened, the seeds should be removed from the branches and destroyed. Fruit that is allowed to remain on the tree has the potential to be eaten by animals or drop and sprout. Burning or simply putting the seeds in a sealed trash bag can remove potential buckthorn from the system. Specific instances of composting being used as a means of fruit disposal were not found for this paper, but it would probably be a good idea to try this method and place some of the resulting compost in gardening trays or pots to see if any R. cathartica seedlings are produced. Physical Prescribed or controlled burning is used to eradicate populations of R.cathartica in areas adapted to fire (Kline 1981). Areas that are suited to fire management are those that contain fire tolerant natives (e.g., older Quercus rubra and Q. macrocarpa with thick, fire retardant bark) have well- drained soils, and have enough litter under the trees to fuel the fire. A successful burn consumes the brushy understory, leaving the ground mostly bare with the larger fire resistant trees left intact. Controlled burns usually have the biggest impact on R. cathartica seedlings and the current year's seeds. The best time to conduct burns is between late March http: / /www.hort. agri. umn.edu /h5015 /00papers /gale.htm 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 5 of 11 and early May as low carbohydrate levels should reduce re- sprouting vigor (Dziuk 1998). Considering the time, energy, and safety considerations involved, it is usually only larger restorations relatively far away from human habitation that employ fire to control R. cathartica (Moriarty 2000). One impediment to conducting a burn is that R. cathartica usually shades out understory species, reducing the amount of leaf litter found in the area and consequently limiting the ability to employ fire as an effective means of control (Dziuk 1998). A sufficient accumulation of dead plant material is necessary to move the fire from one place to another. Chemical There is much information available about herbicides that are often used to impair the growth and development of R. cathartica. Restoration practitioners and interested members of the public should carefully read all manufacturers' directions prior to using a herbicide and use proper safety equipment during application. The best time of year to use herbicides on target plants is just after the native grasses and wildflowers have gone dormant (Boudreau and Wilson 1992). Herbicide applications may be done early in the season just after the trees have leafed out and before the trees have begun to bud, but those conducted in the fall or early winter appear to be the most effective (Aho 2000, Bohnen 2000, Solecki 1997). Applications conducted at temperatures below zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit) will likely experience reduced effectiveness (Solecki 1997). Many of these chemicals such as Garcon and Roundup are unrestricted in their usage and can be purchased without a special license (Apfelbaum 1984). Table 1 is a list of the most thoroughly tested and commonly used herbicides available along with their potential impact on the surrounding environment. Contol Method Efficacy There is no clear consensus on the most effective means of control, but the application of herbicides to newly cut stumps seems to be an emerging preference. Conversations with several local restoration practitioners add further insight into the usage of herbicides. Mike Aho, a naturalist at Sibley State Park (located 150 km northwest of Minneapolis, MN near the town of New London), has found basal bark and cut stump application of Garlon 4 to be a reliable means of controlling R. cathartica (Aho 2000). Brush application in the fall, as opposed to spraying, resulted in no non - target plant mortality. In the initial phase of eliminating the mature trees capable of reproduction, chemical application to stumps yielded 100 percent mortality while basal bark treatment yielded slightly less efficacy. Some of the trees with a basal diameter greater than seven cm did not fully succumb until the second year after application. Garlon 3A, Tordon RTU, and Roundup have also been used by Aho in the past. Despite the high efficacy achieved, Garlon 3A has greater persistence because of its amine salt component in the environment and the higher user risk. In addition, painful blistering immediately ensues following contact with even a drop of the solution. Aho found application of Tordon RTU to stumps in the winter produced good results as well. So although year round usage is an advantage, Tordon's potential as a major groundwater contaminant renders it less desirable (Dziuk 1998). His use of Roundup yielded the least reliable results. Some stumps that received an application of the manufacturer recommended medium strength (30 -50 percent) solution managed to re- sprout. Field results obtained by Julia Bohnen, a University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum restoration manager, contradict those found above (the arboretum is located in Chanhassen, MN, about 30 km west of Minneapolis). Bohnen (2000) achieved excellent results with late summer to early winter applications of 50 percent strength Roundup to cut stumps. Late summer to early winter treatment with a basic utility-grade spray bottle, available at any hardware store, succeeded in confining the application to R. cathartica and limiting non - target plant mortality. Achieving desired results with a herbicide that is relatively harmless to the environment is indeed attractive. She has also used the foliar treatment herbicide, Krenite S, to control seedlings and young saplings and, similar to results obtained by other practitioners, achieved a very low efficacy. Likewise John Moriarty, currently a restoration manager for Ramsey County Parks in St. Paul, MN, has also observed low efficacy of Krenite S. Its past use in a secondary herbicide application at Highland Park in Bloomington, MN, a southern suburb of Minneapolis, proved totally ineffective (Moriarty 2000). Regarding Roundup, Moriarty has also found it to be a less reliable means of control, especially at lower strengths. Instead he highly recommends the use of Garlon 3A, or more specifically its weaker commercial version, http: / /www.hort. agri. umn.edu /h5015 /00papers /gale.htm 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 6 of 11 Brush- B -Gon. The effectiveness of prescribed burns in controlling R. cathartica is more difficult to determine at this point because of the greater amount of time it takes to realize results and its rather recent advent. A study conducted in 1998 indicated that fire reduced the number and vitality of R. cathartica in a given area (MNDNR 2000). In another study, small seedlings (less than 25.5 cm tall) with shallow roots were particularly impacted by fire (Boudreau and Wilson 1992). Aho (2000) reports a high R. cathartica seedling mortality rate after three consecutive years of conducting prescribed burns. Similarly, Moriarty (2000) has had success with the several burns he has conducted and especially believes in fire as an essential means of controlling the accelerated growth of seedlings that normally ensues after removal of the more mature individuals. To the contrary, a 1988 study on fire and R. cathartica control showed that R. cathartica populations were virtually unaffected when surveyed the following spring (TNC 1995). The study concluded that R. cathartica's ability to re- sprout after top killing was not diminished even after several burns. Furthermore, newly burned areas may serve as a temporary window providing prime conditions for invasion by nearby R. cathartica and dormant seed germination resulting in a re- infestation worse than the original (USGS 2000). Despite being labor and time intensive, mechanical means of controlling R. cathartica are often of necessity when a large number of seedlings is interspersed by desirable vegetation. Under these conditions herbicide treatment is prohibitive. Larger trees can be removed mechanically too. Bohnen (2000), in her restoration efforts, has had success removing all age classes, up to 7 cm in diameter, by sufficiently loosening their roots with a shovel followed by hand pulling/pushing. The recruitment of volunteer help, such as `sentenced -to- serve' crews (those who must perform community service as a means of satisfying their sentence for a minor crime), has made mechanical control methods a more viable option for larger restoration efforts (Hayman 2000). Control Strategy Current efforts on parklands to control R. cathartica are a good start, but the efficient avian dispersal of R. cathartica propagules necessitates the assumption of a regional removal stategy. To reduce the threat of immediate reinfestation of a given park, residential areas within close proximity to that park should be cleared of mature R. cathartica as well. Education efforts that would succeed in mobilizing the public to remove R. cathartica from their properties, or infested areas within their immediate vicinity, should be highly encouraged. The importance of residential control may be further emphasized by an example of R. cathartica infestation of urban parkland along Minnehaha Creek approximately 0.5km from my south Minneapolis residence. An individual adult R. cathartica tree laden with fruit and a R. cathartica hedgerow, also bearing fruit, exist in neighboring yards (Figures 4a and 4b). Five city blocks away, the woodland buffering the creek is experiencing varying states of R. cathartica infestation. Its density is quite heavy in spots. The understory of a 30 m patch of mature native tree species (Populus deltoides, Fraxinus sp., Ulmus sp., and Acer negundo) completely choked with a near singular age class of two to three m tall R. cathartica dramatically demonstrates one such instance (Figure 5). Several large, fruit bearing trees within a short distance of the patch are the likely propagule sources. Their removal should be conducted immediately, but unless the mature R. cathartica capable of producing fruit in the nearby residential area are removed, a successfully restored portion of the park may once again be faced with R. cathartica encroachment. A greater dissemination of a list of alternative native shrubs that could serve as replacement plantings would likely expedite public involvement in residential control. Possible native shrub replacements for Minnesota are Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Ell., Alnus incana (L.) subsp. rugusa (Du Roi) Clausen, Amelanchier sp., Cornus sp., Corylus americana L., Hamamelis virginiana L., Symphoricarpos albus (L.) Blake, Viburnum lentago L., V. rafinesquianum Schultes, and V. trilobum (Marsh.) (Moriarty 2000). Figures 4a and 4b. Clusters of fruit are apparent on this mature, female R. cathartica tree (a) and hedgerow (b). http: / /www.hort. agri. umn.edu /h5015 /00papers /gale.htm • 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 7 of 11 Figure 5. Stand of mature native tree species with a thick R. cathartica understory. http:// www. hort.agri.umn.edu/h5015 /00papers /gale.htm 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 8 of 11 Conclusion As extensive as the invasion of temperate forest communities by R. cathartica has been, it is clear that management techniques currently being employed by restoration practitioners and private citizens are capable of halting its further encroachment. The case of R. cathartica's invasion of native habitat is a testimony to the importance of addressing an exotic species in its initial stages of introduction, not after it has become well established. Much time and money can be saved. The potential for R. cathartica to significantly alter native plant community structure and function demands a concerted response. Accordingly, a combination of increased public awareness and greater allocation of funds are critical to the expansion of current restoration efforts. The future ecological integrity of temperate North American forests depends on it. References Aho, M. Sibley State Park Naturalist, New London, MN. Field interview 29 Sept. 2000. Apfelbaum, S.I. 1984. Buckthorn control with herbicide tested (Illinois). Restoration and Management Notes 2(1):36, Archibold, O. W., D. Brooks, and L. Delanoy. 1997. An investigation of the invasive shrub European Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica L., near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Canadian Field Naturalist 111(4): 617 -621. Bohnen, J. University of Minnesota Arboretum Plant Community Restoration Manager, Chanhassen, MN. Field interview 13 Oct. 2000. Boudreau, D and G. Wilson. 1992. Buckthorn research and control at Pipestone National Monument. Restoration & Management Notes. 10: 94 -95. Converse, C. 1985. Element Stewardship Abstract, Rhamnus cathartica. The Nature Conservancy. Dziuk, P.M. 1998. "European (Common) Buckthorn ". Minnesota Department of Agriculture Fact Sheet. Gill, D.S. and E. Howell. 1984. Tree shrub seedling colonization of old fields in central New York. Ecological Monographs 61: 183 -205. Gleason, H.A., Crouquist, A. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 810 p. Gourley, L.C. and E. Howell. 1984. Factors in buckthorn invasion documented; control measure checked. Restoration & Management Notes 2:87. Haber, Erich. "Invasive Plants of Canada Project: Common buckthorn ". < http: / /infoweb .magi.com /- ehaberfactbck.html> National Botanical Services, Ottawa, ON Canada. April 1997. http://www.hort.agri.umn.edu/h5015/00papers/gale.htm 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 9 of 11 Harrington, R.A., B.J. Brown, and P.B. Reich. 1989. . Ecophysiology of exotic and native shrubs in Southern Wisconsin. Oecologia 80: 356-367. Hayman, J. Private resident working in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Neighborhood Wilds Program, Afton, MN. Field interview 11 Oct. 2000. Howland, Anne. 1996. The California Exotic Pest Plant Council. Restoration & Management Notes. 14(1): 41 -43. Kline, V. 1981. Control of honeysuckle and buckthorn in oak forests. Restoration & Management Notes 1:18. Krebach Amy and Chester Wilson. 1996. Allelopathic effects of various biotic materials from the common buckthorn on rye grass seeds. University of St. Thomas unpublished study. Maw, M.G. 1981. Rhamnus cathartica L., common or European buckthorn Biological control programs against insects and weeds in Canada 1969 -1980. Commonwealth Agricultural Bereau. UK. 185 -189. Meader, R. 1999 "Wild Ones Michigan Chapter — Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)" http: / /www. for- wi ld.org /michigan /buckthorn.html (Accessed 13 Sep. 2000). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). "The Truth about Exotic Species: European Bucktorn ". <http: / /www.dnr.state.mn.us /fish- and - wildlife /exotics /buck/html >. (Accessed 13 Sep. 2000) Moriarty, J. Ramsey County Parks Restoration Manager, St. Paul, MN. Phone interview 6 Nov. 2000. • Moriarty, J. "The Trouble with Backyard Buckthorn ". MNDNR- Minnesota Conservation Volunteer <http: / /www.dnr.state.mn.us /information and education /publications/ (Accessed 13 Sep. 2000). Munkvold, Gary 1996. "Planting date important for oat disease ". Department of Entomology, Iowa StateUniversity, Ames, Iowa. http : / /www.ipm.iastate.edu /ipm /icm /1996 /3- 25- 1996 /oatdisdate.html The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 1995. Element Stewardship Abstract for Rhamnus cathartica and Rhamnus frangula. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, Virginia. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2000 "Conservation Science" <http://www.consci.tnc.org/library/pubs/dd/summary.html>. (Accessed 13 Sep. 2000) Ness, Tom. 1989. New Invention Uproots Woody Plants. Restoration & Management Notes. 7.2: 77 -79. Ontario Vegetation Management Association (OVMA). "Buckthorn, European" <http: // www.ovma.on.ca /Weeds /buckthorn.htm> (Accessed 13 Sep. 2000). Rebuffoni, Dean. 1992. News; Restoring Minnesota. Minneapolis Star Tribune. November 16. Rebuffoni, Dean. 1997. Little trees causing some big problems: The proliferation of European buckthorn has Minneapolis official battling an alien species whose thickets are overrunning parks and neighborhoods, pushing out native plants. Minneapolis Star Tribune. December 27. Rebuffoni, Dean. 1997. Make this invader unwelcome; European buckthorn is an unwanted alien that has invaded many of our woodlands, wetlands and fields creating dense, almost impenetrable, thickets. Minneapolis Star Tribune. December 4. Samuels, A., 1996. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden Publication. Randall, M.J. and J. Marinelli editors. 64 -65. http: / /www.hort. agri. umn.edu /h5015 /00papers /gale.htm 2/15/01 Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 10 of 11 Schmidt, K.A. and C.J. Whelan. 1999. Effects of exotic Lonicera and Rhamnus on songbird nest predation. Conservation Biology 13(6): 1502 -1506. Solecki, M.K. 1997. Controlling invasive plants. P. 135 -150. IN Packard, S. and C.F. Mutel (Eds). The tallgrass restoration handbook. Island Press, Covelo, CA. USGS 2000. "Species Abstracts of Highly Disruptive Exotic Plants ". <http: / /www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ resource / orthrdata / exoticab /errirhab /piperham.lrtm >. (Accessed 13 Sep. 2000) Zomlefer W.B. 1994. Guide to flowering plant families. P. 105 -107. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Table 1. Commonly used herbicides. Information provided by MNDNR 2000. Product Name Active Ingredient Strength* Comments Roundup Glyphosate 18 -100% Nonselective. Will kill any vegetation it contacts. Immediate application to cut stump (within 24 hours) is necessary. Dilute with water. Practitioners have reported variable efficacy at manufacturer recommended dilutions (30 -50% strength). Glyphosate degrades easily and is relatively harmless to the environment. Very little risk to user. Late fall application, when most other plants have gone dormant, assures negligible impact on non - target plants. Garcon 3A Triclopyr (44.4% amine salt) 8 -100% Applied to cut stumps. Dilute with water. Negligible impact on surrounding vegetation. User risk is significant. Must wear protective eye gear. Cost effective if applied to large acreage. High efficacy. The homeowner's version, Ortho's "Brush- B -Gon ", is an 8% strength solution. Garton 4 Triclopyr (61.6% ester) 12.5% early in Good for basal bark or cut stump growing season, application. In the former case, entire otherwise 20 %. circumference of basal 10 inches (25.5cm) should be covered via low pressure sprayer or brush. High efficacy. Recommended solution strengths are achieved via dilution with diesel fuel. Does not have same user risks as Garton 3A. Hot summer weather may volatilize ester component and consequently impact http : / /www.hort. agri. umn.edu /h5015 /00papers /gale.htm 2/15/01 • • Control of the Invasive Exotic Rhamnus cathartica in Temperate North American Prairies.. Page 11 of 11 non - target plants. Fuel would likely impact nearby plants as well. Tordon RTU Picloram and 2,4 -D Follow Ready to use - -no mixing required. product Winter application to cut stump yields directions high efficacy. Application with a non - foam brush is recommended. Relatively inexpensive, but moves readily through soil and kills non - target vegetation. Trimec 2,4 -D 50% Affects broadleaf plants. Dilute with equal portion of water. Can also be mixed with diesel fuel at 12.5% solution in early season. Like Tordon, easily moves through the soil and is prone to adversely impacting non- target vegetation. Krenite S Fosamine Follow Affects woody plants. Should be product sprayed on foliage in late fall when directions other plants are dormant. Inhibits bud break the following growing season. In practice, has proven to have very low efficacy. Necessity of complete coverage of target vegetation likely limits its efficacy. Timing of application may also be problematic *Strength refers to that of the product and not the active ingredient. Return to the Restoration ct: .Reclamation Review fIonic Page http: / /www.hort. agri. umn .edu /h5015 /00papers /gale.htm 2/15/01 • • • Lino Lakes Environmental Agenda Item 7B Memo To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: 02/22/01 Re: Victor Gardens Victor Gardens is a development in the City of Hugo. Victor Gardens is located east of 24th Ave and north and south of CSAH 8. Anoka County Rd 14 becomes CSAH 8 in Washington County. This is informational and I have included a concept plan and photo of the area. The City of Hugo is currently planning a larger area to the north and east of Victor Gardens as part of the DNR Urban Interface project. Cindy Sherman from SHE is working with them on this. They are very much aware of the wildlife area indicated on the photo. • Page 1 f*, 4