january 21, 2015 board packet

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday,

January 21, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

A) Attendance

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

II. Public Comment For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)

III. Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4)

Board Discussion and Action.)

A) Permit #14-037 YMCA 60-day Review Extension B) Permit # 14-040 Snelling (Kelley) C) Permit Close Outs 08-029 Mississippi Market (Hosch) D) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)

IV. Special Reports District 6 Natural Resource Inventory, Nate Zwonitzer

V. Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the January 7th Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve December 2014 Accounts Payable/Receivable (Sylvander) C) AR: Award Bid for Remote Data Access Electrical Contract (Suppes)

VI. Unfinished Business A. Metro MAWD Update

VII. General Information

A) Closed Session for Annual Performance Review of Administrator

VIII. Next Meetings

A) Wednesday, January 21, 2014 Meeting Agenda Review

IX. Adjournment

W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\January 21, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

Materials Enclosed

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

DATE: January 15, 2015

TO: CRWD Board of Managers

FROM: Forrest Kelley, Regulatory and Construction Program Manager

RE: 14-037 YMCA Review Extension Request

Background

The 60-day review period for Permit 14-037 YMCA will expire on February 3, 2015.

Issues

Staff have not received updated plans to address comments provided to the applicant November 20,

2014. The applicant is currently working through the Citys Site Plan Review process. Staff are requesting the Board approve a 60-day review extension to expire April 4, 2015

Requested Action

Approve a 60-day extension to the review period

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-037 YMCA\Brd Memo YMCA Extension.docx

January 21, 2015

Regular Board Meeting

III. Permits A) 14-037 YMCA

Review Extension Request

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 14-040 Snelling Avenue

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 6 Conditions: 1. Provide updated plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit when it has been acquired. 3. Revise HydroCAD or Construction Plans to correspond:

a. HydroCAD labels the infiltration basin pretreatment as PB Pond, sheet 295 of the Construction Plans labels it as Pretreatment Basin, sheet 294 labels it as Pierce Butler Pond. Remain consistent in labeling in order to prevent confusion.

b. The Construction Plans indicated that structure 5321 has a 24 RCP outlet pipe that may control flows. Revise the HydroCAD model to route overflow through this pipe.

c. The HydroCAD model has two horizontal orifice outlets: one at elevation 919.25 and one at elevation 920.05. The applicant has indicated that the orifices are meant to model a sloped grate, but the full diameter of structure 5321 was used for both orifices. Revise HydroCAD model to better simulate the hydraulics of the sloped grate.

4. Provide additional detail for the area west of the infiltration basin including a grading plan and invert elevations of culverts. This information should demonstrate that water will not pond west of the infiltration basin.

5. Provide planting plan for the infiltration/filtration basin bottom, or provide an alternative methods to limit inundation and ensure seed will survive during the establishment period.

6. Provide a procedure for determining infiltration basin function and conditions that would necessitate filtration modification.

Note: Consider maximizing treatment capacity with the space and drainage available. Volumes in excess of the requirement up to two inches can be banked for future projects with site constraints.

Permit Report 14-040 Board Meeting Date: 01/21/15

Applicant: Bruce Irish MnDOT Metro 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113

Consultant: N/A

Description: Snelling Avenue mill and overlay, ADA improvements, sidewalk replacement, and curb and gutter Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes an infiltration/filtration basin at Snelling and Pierce Butler Route District Rule: C D F Disturbed Area: 4.724 Acres Impervious Area: 4.724 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo

Pierce Butler

Selby

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report

CRWD Permit #: 14-040 Review date: January 16, 2015 Project Name: Snelling Avenue State Project 6215-99 Applicant: Bruce Irish

MnDOT Metro District 1500 West County B2 Roseville, MN 55113 651.234.7534 [email protected] Purpose: Reconstruction of Snelling Avenue including mill and overlay,

ADA improvements, sidewalk replacement, and curb and gutter. Location: Snelling Avenue between Selby Street and Pierce Butler Route Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 6 Conditions EXHIBITS:

1. Response to Recommendations, by MnDOT, not dated, recd. 1/5/15. 2. Redlined Construction Plans (sheets 282, 294, 295, and 311), by MnDOT, dated

12/18/14, recd. 1/5/14. 3. Watershed Permit Narrative, by MnDOT, not dated, recd. 12/17/14. 4. MnDOT Soils Log Report, By MnDOT, dated 9/23/14, recd. 12/17/14. 5. Watershed Delineation Map, by MnDOT, not dated, recd. 12/17/14. 6. HydroCAD model, by MnDOT, dated 12/12/14, recd. 12/17/14. 7. Construction Plan, by MnDOT, not dated, recd. 12/17/14.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed

existing rates.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-040 Snelling Avenue\14-040 Snelling Ave_Review_02.doc Page 1 of 4

Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.

Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze

runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for

the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.

a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 205,786 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

15,434 cf BMP Volume Below Inf. Basin 20,650 cf Runoff Volume 1 MnDOT ROW 15,335 cf 1 Hamline 29,156 cf 1 Total 44,491 cf

c. Filtration contingencies have been proposed in the event that

infiltration is not successful. A capped underdrain has been proposed in the event that infiltration does not occur. In this case the filtration retention requirement would be 20,064 cubic feet and the basin would still provide volume retention in excess of the requirement.

d. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. e. Infiltration volume and facility size has been calculated using the

appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate.

f. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours.

g. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from

the runoff generated on an annual basis.


6. A maintenance agreement exists between Mn/DOT and CRWD. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface basins.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year

floodplain. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a

project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. Compensatory storage is not needed. 3. It is not known if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or

adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, adequate conveyance of stormwater has been provided to prevent flooding.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard

Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.

A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

Standards A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control

measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.

Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management

practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from

erosion/sediment transport/deposition.


4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has not been submitted.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION

Standard Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and

proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not

proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 6 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide updated plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of

AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit when it has been acquired. 3. Revise HydroCAD or Construction Plans to correspond:

a. HydroCAD labels the infiltration basin pretreatment as PB Pond, sheet 295 of the Construction Plans labels it as Pretreatment Basin, sheet 294 labels it as Pierce Butler Pond. Remain consistent in labeling in order to prevent confusion.

b. The Construction Plans indicated that structure 5321 has a 24 RCP outlet pipe that may control flows. Revise the HydroCAD model to route overflow through this pipe.

c. The HydroCAD model has two horizontal orifice outlets: one at elevation 919.25 and one at elevation 920.05. The applicant has indicated that the orifices are meant to model a sloped grate, but the full diameter of structure 5321 was used for both orifices. Revise HydroCAD model to better simulate the hydraulics of the sloped grate.

4. Provide additional detail for the area west of the infiltration basin including a grading plan and invert elevations of culverts. This information should demonstrate that water will not pond west of the infiltration basin.

5. Provide planting plan for the infiltration/filtration basin bottom, or provide an alternative methods to limit inundation and ensure seed will survive during the establishment period.

6. Provide a procedure for determining infiltration basin function and conditions that would necessitate filtration medication.

Note: Consider maximizing treatment capacity with the space and drainage available. Volumes in excess of the requirement up to two inches can be banked for future projects with site constraints.




TO: CRWD Board of Managers

FROM: Elizabeth Hosch, BMP Inspector

RE: Permit Closeouts

Background

Construction activity is complete for permit 08-029, Mississippi Market.

Issues

Final inspections were conducted in the summer of 2014. All temporary BMPs have been removed and

soils stabilized. Construction as-builts have been submitted and the BMPs were installed as approved.

A Maintenance Agreement for the onsite stormwater management practices has been recorded with

Ramsey County.

$5,100 of surety was required for this project.

Action Requested

Approve Certificate of Completion and associated $5,100 surety return for permit 08-029 Mississippi

Market.

cc: Jim Mogen, Ramsey Country Attorneys Office

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2015-1-21 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx

January 21, 2015

III. Permit Applications

C) Permit Close Out (Hosch)


TO: Technical Advisory Committee

FROM: Paige Ahlborg, RWMWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD

SUBJECT: Rule Amendment Informal Review and Comment Responses

The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) and Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Joint Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) have proposed potential amendments to the existing rules. In early 2014, a number of items were brought before the TAC for review. These items were included in Draft Rules which were distributed for an informal comment period in November 2014. The attached document provides responses to, comments received.

A TAC meeting will be held January 29, 2015 to discuss revisions, comments, and District response to comments. Rule revision timeline will also be discussed including formal review timeline and Board approval dates.

Questions or concerns can be submitted to [email protected] or [email protected] prior to this date.

Joint Technical Advisory Committee for Rules

January 29, 2015

1:00-3:00pm

Capitol Region Watershed District Office 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 in St. Paul, MN


DATE: January 15, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist RE: District 6 Natural Resource Inventory

Background In 2014, CRWD partnered with the City of St. Paul and the District 6 Planning Council to complete a natural resource inventory within a targeted area of District 6. CRWD contracted Barr Engineering to complete the inventory and develop a report. The goal of the report is to document existing natural resources and their condition, identify opportunities for resource protection/restoration, and provide recommendations on how to increase resource connectivity by creating natural resource corridors. The report will inform the Citys planning process and provide direction to CRWD activities. Issues A draft of the report has been completed and is enclosed. It is currently being reviewed by the City and CRWD. Barr Engineering completed a desktop analysis, field investigations, MLCCS evaluation, tree canopy cover estimates, and vegetation surveys to identify critical natural resource areas. In addition to identification and inventory, Barr developed management goals, strategies, and opportunities for the study area. Goals include protection of open green space, enhancing habitat, and establishing corridors of natural vegetation. Specific parcels were identified for potential future acquisition to create corridors, while other parcels were identified for invasive species removal or creation of a small pocket park. The report provides a nice snap shot of the areas current natural resources and provides guidance for future planning efforts. Action Requested

1. Provide review and comment on the District 6 Natural Resource Inventory. 2. Accept the District 6 Natural Resource inventory, subject to final revisions.

enc: Draft District 6 Natural Resource Inventory \\CRWDC01\Company\06 Projects\District 6 NRI\Board Memo D6 NRI.docx

January 21, 2015 IV. Special Reports

District 6 Natural Resource Inventory (Zwonitzer)

TITLE OF REPORT Date of Report

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory

Report

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN January 2015 DRAFT

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory Report

BY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Project conducted in

partnership with:

City of Saint Paul

Barr Engineering Co.

Saint Paul, Minnesota

January 2015

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621154 Dist 6 Nat'l Resource Inven\WorkFiles\Report\District 6 NRI_draft for CRWD review.docx

i

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory

January 2015

Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Field methods ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................................11

3.1 MLCCS Evaluation and Verification .......................................................................................................................11

3.1.1 Tree Canopy Cover .................................................................................................................................................12

3.2 Field Investigation Results .........................................................................................................................................12

3.2.1 General Observations ............................................................................................................................................12

3.2.2 MLCCS Verification and Quality Rating ..........................................................................................................13

3.2.3 General Vegetation Community Types ...........................................................................................................15

3.2.4 Invasive/Exotic species ..........................................................................................................................................15

3.2.5 Specific Parcel Information ..................................................................................................................................16

4.0 Management Goals, Strategies and Opportunities ..............................................................................................26

4.1 Management Goals ......................................................................................................................................................26

4.2 Management Strategies .............................................................................................................................................27

4.3 Specific Management Opportunities ....................................................................................................................28

4.3.1 Invasive Removal and Clean-ups ......................................................................................................................28

4.3.2 Native Plant Community Enhancements ........................................................................................................28

4.3.3 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement ............................................................................................................................29

4.3.4 Connectivity Enhancements ................................................................................................................................29

4.3.5 Preservation Target Parcels .................................................................................................................................29

4.3.6 Strategic Acquisitions/Easements .....................................................................................................................30

4.3.7 Other Natural Resource Management Actions ...........................................................................................30

List of Tables

Table 1 MLCCS Desktop Analysis Summary .......................................................................................................... 11 Table 2 Summary of Natural Areas ........................................................................................................................... 24

List of Figures

Figure 1 Project Area Stormwater Features and Wetlands (MN DNR NWI East Central Update) ........ 3 Figure 2 Physical Features - Digital Elevation Model ............................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Current Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 Historical Imagery ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Historic Water Resources ................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 6 MLCCS Classification (Barr) ............................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 7 Parcel Investigation ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8 MLCCS Community Quality Ranking (Barr) ........................................................................................... 14

ii

1.0 Introduction The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), working with the City of Saint Paul (City), initiated a natural resource inventory (NRI) for a targeted study (or project) area within District 6, a neighborhood on the north side of Saint Paul. The project area contains land uses found throughout the city, including residential, industrial, rail corridors, and commercial.

The purpose of conducting this NRI is to help CRWD, the City, and District 6 understand, prioritize, protect, and restore the areas natural resources and irreplaceable open spaces. This is the first NRI collaboration effort between CRWD and the City, and CRWD hopes to use this effort as a pilot to determine the benefits and challenges of conducting urban NRIs.

Using desktop data and field investigations, Barr conducted an NRI throughout the project area, cataloging native and invasive vegetation in 24 locations in this highly-developed, industrial area of the city. The NRI data and identification of management strategies and opportunities provided in this report will be able to help CRWD and the City by:

Informing land use planning and development Clarifying the project areas value with regard to water quality and wildlife habitat Identifying degraded areas and management problems Identifying opportunities for natural resources protection and enhancement Identifying opportunities for treating urban stormwater Providing information that can be used to develop management priorities

1

2.0 Methods 2.1 Site Description Located within the North End neighborhood of Saint Paul, the project areas western, eastern, northern, and southern boundaries are defined respectively by Interstate 35E (I-35E), Rice Street, Arlington Avenue, and Maryland Avenue (Figure 1). The project area is composed primarily of commercial and industrial properties with residential land use on the east side. Approximately 251 acres in size, the project area makes up 0.07% of the citys total 35,931-acre land area.

The Gateway State Trail runs through a portion of the site and connects recreational users from Saint Paul to Stillwater. This recreation trail runs beyond the south-eastern end of the project site alongside the recently constructed Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary. The sanctuary is situated where the Soo Line Railroad historically operated. To the north of the project area, an approximately 11-acre wetland complex is evidence of the historic Trout Brook wetlands once present throughout the eastern portions of the project site (Figure 2).

2

L'O

rient

St

35E

456731

456755

456731456749

Timbe

rlake

Rd

N J

acks

on S

tJa

ckso

n S

t

W Geranium Ave

W Maryland Ave

W Orange Ave

W Rose Ave

W Arlington Ave

N Agate St

N P

ark

St

N A

bell

St

N W

oodb

ridge

St

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Maryland Ave

N R

ice

St

W Cottage Ave

N A

lbem

arle

St

W Ivy Ave

E Arlington Ave

Abe

ll S

t

E Hawthorne AveW Hawthorne Ave

W Hyacinth Ave

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Geranium Ave

E Rose Ave

N P

ark

St

N M

ayre

St

Trou

t Bro

ok C

ir

Norpac Rd

L'O

rient

St

35E

456731

456755

456731456749

Timbe

rlake

Rd

N J

acks

on S

tJa

ckso

n S

t

W Geranium Ave

W Maryland Ave

W Orange Ave

W Rose Ave

W Arlington Ave

N Agate St

N P

ark

St

N A

bell

St

N W

oodb

ridge

St

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Maryland Ave

N R

ice

St

W Cottage Ave

N A

lbem

arle

St

W Ivy Ave

E Arlington Ave

Abe

ll S

t


W Hyacinth Ave

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Geranium Ave

E Rose Ave

N P

ark

St

N M

ayre

St

Trou

t Bro

ok C

ir

Norpac Rd

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure 1

Capitol Region Watershed DistrictSaint Paul, MN

Project Area Stormwater Features and Wetlands (MN DNR NWI East Central Update)

Subwatersheds

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Trout Brook Interceptor

St. Paul - Storm Pipe

Project Area

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, FWS, City of Saint Paul, DNR

Capitol RegionWatershed DistrictProject Area

2L'O

rient

St

456731

456755

456731456749

Timbe

rlake

Rd

N J

acks

on S

tJa

ckso

n S

t

W Geranium Ave

W Maryland Ave

W Orange Ave

W Rose Ave

W Arlington Ave

N A

gate St

N P

ark

St

N A

bell

St

N W

oodb

ridge

St

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Maryland Ave

N R

ice

St

W Cottage Ave

N A

lbem

arle

St

W Ivy Ave

E Arlington Ave

Abe

ll S

t


W Hyacinth Ave

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Geranium Ave

E Rose Ave

N P

ark

St

N M

ayre

St

Trou

t Bro

ok C

irNorpac Rd

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure Physical Features - Digital Elevation Model

Project Area

Wetlands (MN DNR NWI East Central Update)Railroad

Building

Service Layer Credits: CRWD, FWS, City of Saint Paul, MN Geo, MN DOT


35E

Nearly all of the topography, natural areas, and wetlands seen today are a result of cultural modifications (History of the Trout Brook Valley 2013). Currently, the site is comprised of varied topography with an industrial rail line situated through the middle portion of the project area (Figure 3). CRWD mapping and historical photographs indicate that most of the eastern half of the project area was wetland, probably a mosaic of emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. Trout Brook historically passed through the project area, roughly north-south through the center. Available historic imagery also reveals that the central rail corridor defined the sites infrastructure as it developed into its current state (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

2.2 Desktop Analysis Initial evaluation began by compiling all relevant and publicly-available geospatial and site-specific data. Informative geologic, topographic, hydrological, ecological, and cultural layers were analyzed to identify areas for targeted field investigation.

In addition to existing data, Barr classified areas within the project boundary using the methods specified within the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) User Manual. MLCCS identifies observed physical land cover, e.g., vegetation, buildings, pavement, water, etc. MLCCS describes an area such as the project site with land cover terminology as opposed to more traditional land use descriptions. Using MLCCS for an initial evaluation of natural resources in the project area provides a snapshot of the types and distribution of vegetated and non-vegetated areas. This identifies areas of interest for further ground investigation. The initial desktop classification was completed using high resolution aerial imagery and relevant Google Street View photographs (Figure 6).

Using the data extracted from Barrs MLCCS analysis, anecdotal information provided by staff from the City of Saint Paul and CRWD, and available geospatial data layers from various sources including the MnDNR, Met Council, CRWD, City, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Barr identified 24 sites for initial investigation (Figure 7). Owners of identified parcels were then contacted by the City and made aware of Barrs planned field investigation.

2.3 Field methods Barr ecologists visited the parcels selected for further field investigation August 28 and 29, 2014, to verify the MLCCS analysis and to characterize general vegetation community types. The dominant species within the vegetation community types at each parcel were identified, as well as physical features such as slope, aspect, evidence of past disturbance and ongoing management practices (if any). Barr staff also looked for previously unmapped wetlands, or wet areas that meet at least one of the three US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) parameters for wetlands. In some of these suspected wet areas, soil data were collected to determine the wetland status of the site. In addition, concentrations of noxious or specially regulated weeds and other invasive non-native species were identified. Finally, Barr staff took numerous photos of the selected parcels and general project area to document typical vegetation community types and habitats.

5

L'O

rient

St

Gate

way S

tate

Trail

Wheelock Parkway

456731

456755

456731

456749

Timbe

rlake

Rd

N J

acks

on S

tJa

ckso

n S

t

W Maryland Ave

W Orange Ave

W Rose Ave

W Arlington Ave

N A

gate St

N P

ark

St

N A

bell

St

N W

oodb

ridge

St

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Maryland Ave

N R

ice

St

W Cottage Ave

N A

lbem

arle

St

W Ivy Ave

E Arlington Ave

Abe

ll S

t


W Hyacinth Ave

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Geranium Ave

E Rose Ave

N P

ark

St

N M

ayre

St

Trou

t Bro

ok C

irNorpac Rd

Trout B

roo

k

Nature

Sanctuary

SylvanField

Rice ArlingtonSports Complex

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure General Features

Project Area

Wetlands (MN DNR NWI East Central Update)City of Saint Paul Parks

Railroad

Bikeway

Elevation Contour (2')

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, FWS, City of Saint Paul, DNR,


35E

3Current Conditions

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure

Saint Paul, MNCapitol Region Watershed District

1923

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure


1957

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure


1991

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure


1991

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure


1991

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure


1991

Project Area

Historic Imagery

Service Layer Credits: MHAPO, MnGeo WMS

1923

1957

1991

Figure 4Historical Imagery

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure 5


Historic Water Resources

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, City of Saint Paul, DNR, Google, MN/DOT

Streets and HighwaysProject Area

Existing Building FootprintHistoric Wetland (1848 - 1922)

Historic Stream (1848 - 1922)

14123

13144

23211

14112

1411314112

14121

13144

13134

3217042130 14122

1412

3

13134

42410

14113

14123

6231

0

2321

1

14122

13144

23000

14122

42130

61120

23112 14123 14123

23111

2311

2

14123

4231

023

212

61830

2131

0

42130

14122

14123

4241

0

!;N0 580 1,160290 FeetFigure 6MLCCS Classification (Barr)

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, City of Saint Paul, DNR, Google

Project Area


Short grasses and mixed trees with 26-50% impervious cover

Short grasses and mixed trees with 51-75% impervious cover

Buildings and pavement with 76-90% impervious cover

Pavement with 76-90% impervious cover

Buildings and pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Buildings with 91-100% impervious cover

Pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Short grasses on upland soils

Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

Altered/non-native deciduous forest

Altered/non-native deciduous woodland

Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - saturated

Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - seasonally flooded

Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated vegetation

Altered/non-native grass land with sparse deciduous trees - temporarily flooded

Tall grass altered/non-native dominated grass land

Long grasses on upland soils

Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

P lanted or maintained herbaceous vegetation

Upland soils with planted, maintained or cultivated mixed coniferous/deciduous trees

42130

42310

42410

61830

62310

61120

23212

23112

23000

21310

13134

13144

14113

14112

14123

14121

14122

23211

23111

32170

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure 7

Capitol RegionWatershed DistrictProject Area

Parcel Investigation

Project AreaParcelsRamsey

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service


11

22 33

44

55

66

77 88

99

2424

101016161111

1212

1717

1313

1414

15151818

191923232121 22222020

Parcels of Initial InvestigationLabel PIN Label PIN Label PIN Label PIN

1 123-192922320054 7 123-192922430025 13 123-192922340044 19 123-1929223100072 123-192922310001 8 123-192922440022 14 123-192922340058 20 123-1929223201413 123-192922420017 9 123-192922440021 15 123-192922340059 21 N/A4 123-192922420015 10 123-192922430006 16 123-302922120080 22 N/A5 123-192922420020 11 123-302922120075 17 123-192922430012 23 N/A6 123-192922430024 12 123-192922430015 18 123-192922310018 24 N/A

3.0 Results 3.1 MLCCS Evaluation and Verification The MLCCS evaluation indicates that over 83% of the 251.4-acre project area has some type of artificial land cover. Artificial refers to land cover types that are not naturally occurring or self-sustaining. The most obvious of these land covers are buildings and paved surfaces; however, artificial land covers also include planted and maintained surfaces such as lawns, residential plantings and gardens. Thus the residential neighborhood that makes up most of the southwest corner of the project area is considered an artificial surface by MLCCS terminology.

Non-artificial surfaces are primarily land covers of natural origin and sustained by natural processes. They include grasslands, woodlands and forested areas. The total non-artificial land cover area is just over 16% of the project area. Areas dominated by remnant forest and woodlands total approximately 18 acres, or about 7% of the project area. Table 1 summarizes the MLCCS desktop evaluation of the project area.

Table 1 MLCCS Desktop Analysis Summary

MLCCS Level 1 Type Acres Percent of total project area

10000s - Artificial Surfaces and Associated Areas 13134 - Short grasses and mixed trees with 26-50% impervious cover 26.7 10.6% 13144 - Short grasses and mixed trees with 51-75% impervious cover 35.8 14.2% 14112 - Pavement with 76-90% impervious cover 8.6 3.4% 14113 - Buildings and pavement with 76-90% impervious cover 21.9 8.7% 14121 - Buildings with 91-100% impervious cover 14.5 5.8% 14122 - Pavement with 91-100% impervious cover 52.0 20.7% 14123 - Buildings and pavement with 91-100% impervious cover 51.0 20.3%

Total Artificial Surfaces and Associated Areas 210.5 83.7% 20000s - Planted or Cultivated Vegetation

21310 -= Upland soils with planted, maintained or cultivated mixed coniferous/deciduous trees 1.3 0.5% 23000 - Planted or maintained herbaceous vegetation 2.2 0.9% 23111 - Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils 2.0 0.8% 23112 - Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils 4.7 1.9% 23211 - Short grasses on upland soils 3.7 1.5% 23212 - Long grasses on upland soils 1.8 0.7%

Total Planted or Cultivated Vegetation 15.7 6.2% 30000s - Forested Areas 32170 - Altered/non-native deciduous forest 2.0 0.8%

Total Forested Areas 2.0 0.8%

11

MLCCS Level 1 Type Acres Percent of total project area

40000s -Woodlands 42130 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland 7.9 3.1% 42310 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - saturated 8.4 3.3%

Total Woodlands 16.3 6.5% 60000s - Herbaceous Vegetation 61120 - Tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland 2.2 0.9%

61830 - Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated vegetation 3.3 1.3%

62310 - Altered/non-native grassland with sparse deciduous trees - temporarily flooded 1.4 0.6% Total Herbaceous Vegetation 6.9 2.7%

TOTAL PROJECT AREA 251.4 100.0%

Barr staff ground-truthed the desktop MLCCS evaluation in the field, and decided that no major revisions were warranted (see Section 3.2 Field Investigation Results)

3.1.1 Tree Canopy Cover Tree canopy cover in the project area is at least 17%. This estimate is based on the MLCCS cover type acreages, which indicates that slightly over 83% of the project area is artificial surfaces dominated by buildings and pavement. However, the actual canopy cover in the project area is higher, because some of the artificial MLCCS cover types have at least some degree of tree canopy cover. For instance, the residential neighborhoods in the southwest and northwest corners of the project area are mapped in MLCCS as artificial cover types short grasses and mixed trees with 26-50% impervious cover (13134), or %51-75% impervious cover (13144). Trees along the edges of the railroad corridors are also mapped with these MLCCS cover types. Making the conservative assumption that these neighborhoods and railroad corridors have at least one-third of their area under tree canopy allows an adjustment of the overall project area tree canopy cover to approximately 25%.

3.2 Field Investigation Results 3.2.1 General Observations Field observations are presented in this section starting with a broad overview of the natural resource characteristics of the project area, then discussing the site in increasingly finer detail. From a broad perspective, the project area is dominated by constructed industrial/commercial surfaces throughout the central and eastern portions of the site boundary. The northwest and southwest corners of the project site are residential homes and yards in a standard grid pattern. The residential lot sizes range from about 0.15 to 0.25 acre, and typically have shade tree species (maple, oak, ash) and maintained lawns. The Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad corridor curves southeast to northwest through the center of the project area.

12

Despite the predominance of constructed surfaces within the project area, there is a wide range of natural vegetation community types also present. During the field investigation, Barr staff observed scattered prairie remnants, native-dominated forested stands, old field/woodland areas and several wetland areas.

The overall project area slopes gently to the east, with the northwest corner at approximately 840 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the western edge of the project area at about 800 feet AMSL. The BNSF railroad grade that cuts through the center of the project area ranges from approximately 830 to 860 feet AMSL. Trout Brook, which drains Lake McCarrons in Roseville, flows through a large wetland complex north of the center of the project area, approximately between Jackson Street and the former railroad grade, entering the Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) pipe and tunnel system at Arlington Avenue. Trout Brook, which historically flowed through the entire project area, is now conveyed by TBI through the project area all the way to the Mississippi River. The recently-constructed Trout Brook Nature Preserve is immediately south of southeast edge of the project area, on the other side of Maryland Avenue.

3.2.2 MLCCS Verification and Quality Rating During the field visit, Barr checked the desktop-mapped MLCCS types against on-ground conditions. No major modifications were made to the desktop MLCCS mapping. We acknowledge that there is a fine line between the artificial and planted vegetation MLCCS Level 1 classes, particularly with regard to residential lawns and plantings; however, the intensive maintenance required for residential lawns and vegetation warrants placement of those land covers under the artificial surface category.

MLCCS rankings for natural community quality were also assigned based on the field investigations. Figure 8 shows the natural community quality rankings. These correspond to the following MnDNR descriptions (MnDNR 2004):

A = highest quality natural community, no disturbances and natural processes intact. Site must be visited entirely or partially to accurately assess its natural quality at this level

B = good quality natural community. Has its natural processes intact, but shows signs of past human impacts. Low levels of exotics. Site must be visited entirely or partially to accurately assess its natural quality at this level.

C = moderate condition natural community with obvious past disturbance but is still clearly recognizable as a native community. Not dominated by weedy species in any layer. Minimally, the site must be visited from the edge to accurately assess its natural quality at this level.

D = poor condition of a natural community. Includes some natives, but is dominated by nonnatives and/or is widely disturbed and altered. Herbaceous communities may be assessed with this ranking from a distance if large masses of invasive species are present and the entire community is visible.

NA = Native species present in an altered / non-native plant community. This NA ranking can only be used if the site is field checked from the edge or to a greater degree, thus confirming the presence of native species within a non-native community.

NN = Altered / non-native plant community. These semi-natural communities do not qualify for natural quality ranking. Using NN signifies the site has been field checked and confirms it is a semi-natural community.

There were no A or B ranked areas identified in the project area.

13

!;N0 500 1,000250 FeetFigure 8


MLCCS Community Quality Ranking(Barr)

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, City of Saint Paul, DNR, Google

Project Area

Community Quality Ranking

Not Ranked

C

D

NA

NN

3.2.3 General Vegetation Community Types The field investigations of the selected parcels, as well as windshield surveys around the project area, allowed Barr staff to identify six general vegetation community types present in the project area. These are:

Forests/woodlands vegetation dominated primarily by hardwood trees, especially maples, oaks, cottonwoods, green ash and hackberries. Other less desirable species such as boxelder and Siberian elm are also common. Where conifers are present, they are typically planted Colorado blue spruce. There are few naturally-occurring conifers in the project area.

Mixed native/non-native upland grasslands grass-dominated areas vary widely in species composition, ranging from maintained turfgrass to concentrations of native prairie species. In most occurrences of natural, unmaintained upland grasslands, there is a mix of non-native species such as smooth brome, orchard grass, timothy and Kentucky bluegrass, and natives including big bluestem, little bluestem and Canada wild rye.

Old fields These are areas that frequently intergrade into grass-dominated areas, or that occur in pockets within open woodlands in the project area. As with grasslands, they typically have a mixture of native and non-native species.

Residential areas While not natural vegetation communities per se, residential areas can contain, or can be managed to contain, a number of native species. Most of the residences in the project area are in the northwest and southwest corners of the project area.

Wetlands There are at least nine wetland basins in the project area, ranging from constructed stormwater ponds to localized depressions, to larger wetland complexes. The two best quality wetlands in the project area are on and adjacent to Parcel 1 near the northwest corner of the project area (see below), and in Parcel 7 in the east central part of the project area. Good quality wetlands are also in the southeast corner and central north edge of the project area (Parcels 24 and 2, respectively). The principal wetland functions provided by wetlands in the project area are wildlife habitat, stormwater attenuation and water quality enhancement. MnRAM ratings and wetland management classification rankings were not determined for wetlands in the project area; however, specific management opportunities for all are discussed near the end of this report.

3.2.4 Invasive/Exotic species While there are a number of areas dominated by non-native invasives (ragweed, burdock, thistles, etc.), the project area is relatively free of Minnesota Department of Agriculture Prohibited Noxious Weeds (MDA 2014). No species on the State Prohibited Eradicate List were observed during the field investigations. Two species on the State Prohibited Control List, spotted knapweed and purple loosestrife, were observed. One MDA Specially Regulated species, Japanese knotweed, was seen in two locations in the project area.

During the field investigations, Barr staff encountered the exotic introduced tree species northern catalpa (Catalpa speciosa) in several locations throughout the District 6 project area. All other tree species encountered are native or introduced to the area.

15

3.2.5 Specific Parcel Information As noted above, Barr worked with CRWD and the City to access 24 parcels that were identified in the desktop analysis as being most likely to contain remnant native plant communities and other natural resources of interest. These parcels are likely representative of vegetation community types in the project area. Each of the parcels is described in detail below. The parcel numbers and locations correspond to Figure 7. The parcel descriptions are also summarized in Table 2, along with the vegetation community type(s) in the broader project area that they exemplify, and preliminary management recommendations.

Parcel 1 is a relatively large wetland complex that takes up most of the block bounded by Arlington Avenue to the north, West Cottage Avenue to the south, Sylvan Street to the east and Mayre Street to the west. The center of the wetland is open water with stands of cattail (Typha sp.). Large cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) surround the center of the wetland, with a dense buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) understory. The outermost edge of the wetland along the south, east and west sides has a varied mix of native and non-native grasses and forbs, including sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne), giant goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), rice cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides), burdock (Arctium minus), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and northern water-plantain (Alisma triviale). Dense sandbar willow (Salix exigua) stands are scattered along the southern and western edges. Along the north edge of the wetland there are dense buckthorn seedlings under the cottonwood, and several sedge species near the edge of the open water. An electrical distribution line bisects the wetland north-south. A large dead tree near the wetland center appears to provide habitat for a number of birds and small mammals. Overall, despite some degradation, the wetland in Parcel 1 is one of the best remaining natural resources in the project area. The CRWD 2007-2008 Wetland Assessment Report notes the high invertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores in the Cottage Avenue wetland, and referred to it as a strong healthy wetland.

Parcel 2 is a wetland in the southwest corner of Arlington Avenue and Trout Brook Circle, east of the Post Office. It is primarily an emergent wetland dominated by cattails and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) are also present. There are several medium-large (10-28 inches in diameter) cottonwoods scattered throughout the wetland and along the

16

perimeter of the wetland. The trees in the center of the wetland are dying and/or have visible interior decay. There was 2-6 inches of standing water in several pools around the wetland during field investigations, all densely covered in duckweed (Lemna sp.), as well as areas of open water in the northern third of the site.

Parcel 3 is a highly-degraded, narrowly rectangular strip of non-native grasses and forbs. It is dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), a Minnesota prohibited noxious weed to be controlled, is also present (No photo of Parcel 3).

Parcel 4 is a long (approximately 500-foot) narrow wooded strip on a small rise on the Advance Equipment property. It is dominated by large cottonwoods (up to 28 inches in diameter), with boxelder (Acer negundo) and Siberian elm (Ulmus siberica) in the subcanopy. Buckthorn is dense in the understory, and there is a large amount of metal and wood debris, as well as piles of dirt. There is a small linear emergent wetland at the toe of the slope leading up into the woods. To the south of Parcel 4, the strip of trees narrows, but appears to connect eventually to Parcel 7 (see below).

Parcel 5 is a planted and maintained series of vegetated strips along the southwest edge of LOrient Street. Moving southwest from LOrient Street, Parcel 5 is first a strip of mowed turfgrass, then a row of Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens), then a mixed native/non-native herbaceous strip before abutting a commercial building.

17

Parcel 6 follows the Gateway State Trail southwest from LOrient Street. Along the north edge of the trail, there is an approximately 25-foot strip of primarily wooded and shrub vegetation, dominated by young cottonwoods, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), boxelder, Colorado blue spruce and staghorn sumac (Rhus hirta). Between the woody vegetation and the trails is an herbaceous strip dominated by sweet clover (Melilotus sp.), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and other non-natives. Occasional clumps of two prairie grasses, little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) are also present. The south side of the trail is initially maintained turf grass between the trail and an adjacent commercial building. Further south there is mixed native/non-native herbaceous vegetation on both sides of the trail.

Parcel 7 is accessed from the Gateway State Trail, and is a large roughly rectangular parcel that is primarily an emergent wetland with a forested and shrub perimeter, but that also has a small upland wooded area in the north end. The northern upland area is densely wooded with cottonwoods over smooth brome. The emergent wetland further south is mainly a cattail (Typha sp.) monoculture. However, the surrounding tree/shrub perimeter is an interesting mix of willow (Salix sp.), tamarack (Larix laricina), and cottonwood, with herbaceous species underneath, including joe-pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), greenheaded coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata) and jewelweed. There is minor invasion of purple loosestrife in the south end of the emergent wetland, and there is a patch of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) along the southwest edge of the wetland. Japanese knotweed is an aggressive non-native invasive species and a Minnesota Specially Regulated Plant species. The west edge of Parcel 7 abuts a fenced auto salvage yard. There is clear evidence of trash and waste soil dumping over the fence into the parcel.

18

Parcel 8 contains a roughly rectangular retention/detention pond north of Parcel 24 (see below). The pond is surrounded by a dense approximately 15-foot strip of staghorn sumac and young boxelder, over reed canary grass. Outside of the perimeter shrubs/young trees is maintained turf grass.

Parcel 9 is immediately north of Parcels 10 and 16 (see below). This parcel is primarily occupied by the K-Mart building and parking lot; however, the southern end of the parcel is an upland herbaceous vegetation community with both non-native species and prairie grasses and forbs present. The prairie grass species present include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), switchgrass, little bluestem and side-oats grama (Bouteluoa curtipendula). The vegetation is currently mowed along the western edge of the K-Mart parking lot, including into the prairie grasses.

Parcels 10 and 16 appeared to be distinct in desktop review, but are actually contiguous on the ground. This area is an interesting forested/woodland dominated by large cottonwoods, with black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), green ash and boxelder also in the canopy and understory. Brome and goldenrod are the dominant herbaceous species. The parcels abut the Gateway State Trail. Management opportunities include development of a pocket park and passive recreation, as well as wildlife/pollinator habitat enhancement.

19

Parcel 11 is immediately north of Maryland Avenue, west of the BNSF railroad and south of the gravel road at the edge of an auto salvage yard. The western half of this area is dominated by small trees and shrubs, primarily boxelder (Acer negundo), Siberian elm, small cottonwoods, buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). The upland portion of Parcel 11 also has an early mature northern catalpa (Catalpa speciosa), one of several found scattered throughout the project area. As the parcel slopes gently to the east, it becomes dominated by sandbar willow (Salix exigua), horsetails (Equisetum sp.) and reed canary grass.

Parcel 12 is located on the slope northeast of the new Trout Brook Nature Preserve parking and information area, and is a recently-planted restoration area. The parcel drops approximately 20 feet in elevation to the northeast. The flatter portion at the top of the slope has apparently been planted with prairie grasses and forbs, but is currently dominated by an annual cover drop of oats and wheat, with sweet clover, ragweed and other invasives also present. This is typical of the early stages of a restoration and re-planting effort; it is expected that the desired planted species will begin to emerge and establish over the invasives with proper maintenance. The sloped portion of the parcel has been planted with approximately 100 bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) seedlings in deer-protection cylinders. The parcel slopes down to a gravel road at the edge of an auto salvage yard.

Parcel 13 is a maintained park-like area at the east end (dead end) of East Hawthorne Avenue. The parcel features 10-12 large silver maples (Acer saccharinum) and 4-5 cottonwoods over a maintained, mowed open grassy area. There is no subcanopy, understory or shrub layer.

20

Parcel 14 and Parcel 15 were mapped separately in the desktop study, but are similar in character on the ground. Both parcels are predominantly artificial surfaces (pavement and building), but also have significant remnant woodland and forested vegetation communities. Mixed woodland/old field in the northeast corner of Parcel 15 joins woodland in the north end of Parcel 14, and is connected via a narrow wooded strip to cottonwood forest in the east-central part of Parcel 14. In both Parcels 14 and 15, the cottonwoods present are up to 32 inches in diameter, which is among the largest in the project area. The openings in the canopy are dominated by Canada goldenrod, sweet clover and smooth brome. There are scattered patches of prairie species, including big bluestem, stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida) and heath aster (Symphotrichum ericoides).

Parcel 16 - see Parcel 10.

Parcels 17 through 20 follow the railroad corridors. Parcel 17 follows either side of the BNSF railroad between Maryland Avenue and Jackson Street. Vegetation along the west side of the tracks tends toward an emergent wetland community type, most likely because the tracks back up overland flow against the west side of the railroad embankment. The east side of the tracks is drier because the elevation slopes away from the tracks to the east. On the east side, vegetation is dominated by blackcap raspberry (Rubus occidentalis), brome and Canada goldenrod. Further north, the west side of the tracks also becomes more upland in character, with boxelder, cottonwood and non-native honeysuckle dominating. The most immediate management concern in Parcel 17 is the eradication of a large patch of Japanese knotweed along the west side of the tracks. The proximity of this patch of Japanese knotweed to the Trout Brook Nature Preserve underscores the need to eradicate the patch as soon as possible.

Parcel 18 is the continuation of the railroad-associated plant communities north and west of Parcel 17, on the west side of Jackson Street. Along its south edge, Parcel 18 is dominated by large cottonwoods, and is contiguous with Parcel 15 (see above) (No photo of Parcel 18).

21

Parcel 19 is the abandoned railroad line heading north toward Arlington Avenue. This section of track is on an embankment approximately 30 feet above grade. The slopes of the embankment are a mix of native and non-native grasses and forbs, primarily smooth brome. Clumps of big bluestem and other prairie grasses line the top of the embankment along the tracks.

Parcel 20 is the east-west portion of the BNSF railroad and adjacent land between Sylvan Street and Rice Street. The prairie grass big bluestem is common immediately adjacent to the tracks on both sides. Further away from the tracks, vegetation varies from linear cottonwood stands to large staghorn sumac clumps and strips of boxelder, green ash and buckthorn.

Parcels 21, 22 and 23 are city-owned rectangular parcels, each approximately 250 to 300 feet in length by approximately 50 feet in width. The southern half of Parcel 21 is an open water excavated wetland with cattail around the perimeter. The pond is the discharge point for two parallel drainage ditches west of the parcel. Other species at the pond include minor purple loosestrife, hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), northern water-plantain and blue vervain (Verbena hastata). A narrow strip of boxelder and buckthorn separate the pond from the north end of Parcel 21, which is a degraded herbaceous upland dominated by sweet clover and quackgrass.

22

Parcel 22 is a cottonwood-dominated wooded area, with boxelder and green ash, and buckthorn in the understory (No photo of Parcel 22).

Parcel 23 is an interesting mix of scrub-shrub and emergent wetland, cottonwood-dominated woods and degraded herbaceous upland, following a west to east topographic gradient. The wet swale along the west edge of the parcel is dominated by cattails, jewelweed and willow. Upslope to the east of the swale is a narrow strip of cottonwood and boxelder. Finally, further upslope the parcel flattens out and is a dense patch of sweet clover, burdock and ragweed.

Parcel 24 is a long narrow wooded corridor immediately west of the MnDOT I-35E right-of-way. The parcel slopes downward from both the east and west edges to form a long, linear depression. Green ash, boxelder and buckthorn dominate the upland edges of the parcel. As the elevation drops toward the center, the dominant trees are cottonwood, black willow (Salix nigra) and silver maple. Dominant herbaceous species are Canada goldenrod and stiff sunflower (Helianthus rigida) on the upper slopes and cattail and reed canary grass in the wetter center. There is a dense stand of sandbar willow at the north end of the parcel.

23

Table 2 Summary of Natural Areas

Parcel No. Vegetation Classification Description Quality Wetland Features Estimated

Slope Ownership Natural

Resource Management Opportunities

1 42310 - Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated

vegetation

Reed canary grass and cattail dominated wetland surrounded by buckthorn, boxelder,

and cottonwood species. C

Forested Wetland adjacent to the

Trout Brook Interceptor

1-5% Private Wetland Remove buckthorn understory to improve habitat

quality for birds. Collect and treat stormwater from adjacent roads

and properties

2 62310 - Altered/non-native

grassland with sparse deciduous trees - temporarily flooded

Low lying flat parcel dominated by reed canary grass and other exotic invasive species. Cattail

wetlands on western edge. NN Emergent Wetland none Private

Wet Meadow/We

tland

Increase vegetation diversity for pollinator and bird species.

Manage reed canary and loosestrife Prevent flooding to adjacent properties through

BMPs

3 23112 - Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

Linear parcel dominated by smooth brome and burdock. Vegetation maintained to height

Parcel No. Vegetation Classification Description Quality Wetland Features Estimated

Slope Ownership Natural

Resource Management Opportunities

12 42130 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland

Recently restored slope dominated by annual invasive spices. Slope has been planted with

oak and hackberry seedlings NA N/A 5 15% Public Oak Savanna

Control exotic species

13 -14 32170 - Altered/non-native deciduous forest Mixed deciduous canopy with a densely

colonized buckthorn understory NN N/A 0 -15% Private Woodland Remove Buckthorn Understory to improve habitat

for bird species Develop trail network to connect surrounding

natural areas

15 42130 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland

Large cottonwood canopy with tall grass openings. Openings are a diverse mix of non-native and native forbes and tall grass species.

C N/A 0 5% Private Woodland/ Remnant

Prairie

Restore remnant prairie openings Remove Buckthorn Understory to improve habitat

for bird species Develop trail network to connect surrounding

natural areas

17 - 20 13144 13134 Short grasses and

mixed trees with 26-75% impervious cover

Rail corridor dominated by non-native grass and forb species. Cottonwood and box elder

tree species throughout C N/A 0 5% Private

Woodland/ Remnant

Prairie

Convert abandoned rail line into recreational trail system. Connect to Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary.

Improve ecological patch corridor dynamics with surrounding natural areas.

Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs

21 14113 - Buildings and pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Newly constructed stormwater pond along south side of W cottage Avenue. Site appeared

to have been recently seeded with native species. Situated along road and industrial

property.

C Open Water 0 10% Public ROW Wetland/

Stormwater Pond

Control exotic species Maintain wetland functions

22 - 23 14113 - Buildings and pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Wooded strip along south side of W cottage Avenue. Situated along road and industrial

property. C N/A 0 -15% Public ROW Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious

surfaces with addition of BMPs

25 vv

4.0 Management Goals, Strategies and Opportunities Although is outside of the scope of this report to prescribe specific management actions for developing, enhancing or preserving natural resources in the District 6 project area, this section of the NRI Report is intended to help CRWD and the City consider the following three questions regarding any potential actions taken to address natural resource management in the project area:.

1. Why do CRWD and the City want to manage natural resources in the area? What do CRWD and the City hope to achieve?

2. How, in general terms, could CRWD and the City go about achieving its goals for natural resources in the project area?

3. What specifically could be done and where to accomplish CRWDs and the Citys goals?

The first question speaks to the need to develop management goals for the area. The second question is a consideration of the broader means of achieving those goals. The answers to the last question are the beginning of developing a roadmap for specific management actions that will incrementally achieve CRWDs and the Citys goals for the District 6 project area.

4.1 Management Goals There are numerous potential opportunities for managing natural resources within the project area. CRWD and the City can select from management activities along a gradient from specific localized actions to broader area-wide policies to address the desire to recognize and preserve natural resources in the project area. A necessary first step in the selection of management activities is to consider and identify the goals of natural resource management. Listed below, in no particular order, are several possible goals that CRWD and the City may want to consider prior to enacting management activities.

Preservation and protection of open green space: A goal of management may be to simply stop further degradation of the project areas remaining natural features and protect open, vegetated spaces.

Connectivity: Establish corridors of natural vegetation: Greenways, or corridors of open vegetated space, provide ecological, aesthetic and recreational benefits. Moreover, there is an established synergistic effect to connecting separate, isolated tracts of open green spaces. Establishment of connections between natural resource elements within the project area would also allow the continuation of the corridor into natural areas to the north and south of the site.

Wildlife habitat enhancement: The project area is in a moderately industrialized, highly developed landscape bounded on the east by an interstate highway and on all other sides by major city roads. In this setting, it is important to identify, preserve and enhance opportunities for wildlife to move, forage, nest and generally survive and function. Specific management activities can be implemented to meet the goal of sharing an intensely human-influenced space with wildlife.

Improve pollinator habitat: This goal is a subset of the previous goal of wildlife enhancement, but it is sufficiently important in the current context to identify it as a separate goal. Modern urban settings are increasingly difficult for bees, butterflies and other pollinators to survive. Their ability to survive in urban settings is important to many of our own food sources. Enhancement of

26

pollinator habitat is an achievable goal in the project area, with a high potential for engaging local residents.

Passive and active recreation: Having natural spaces interspersed within the project areas residences and businesses would provide opportunities for observing and enjoying nature, and walking, running or bicycling past native plant communities.

Enhancement of native/natural plant communities: In a number of locations around the project area, the remnants of native plant communities and/or good-quality mixed native/non-native communities are present but declining. These are areas that could return to a healthier, self-sustaining condition with an assist in the form of specific management actions.

Control of invasive species: Many invasive species not only degrade native plant communities and decrease species diversity, but they also have significant economic effects at both local and regional scales. Management of invasive species is an important goal for any natural resource management plan.

4.2 Management Strategies Once a particular management goal has been set, CRWD and the City need to consider which management strategies are best suited to attain the goal. Listed here are several strategies that can be employed for meeting the natural resource management goals of the project area:

Seek landowner cooperation: many of the important pieces of the overall natural resource picture in the project area lie on private property. By presenting the benefits of developing a healthier natural resource base within the project area, CRWD and the City may find landowners that are willing to change their current property management strategies to be more natural resource-friendly. For example, a landowner may be willing to forgo mowing portions of turfgrass areas, and allow the areas to be planted with natives. Engagement with landowners, particularly the industrial/commercial landowners in the project area, is an important strategy for several of the management goals listed above.

Educate and engage local residences: Similarly, enhancement of natural resources on a smaller, localized scale can be achieved by educating the local residences and helping them understand their roles in achieving the overall goals. Approximately one-quarter of the project area is residential neighborhoods; this represents a unique opportunity for identifying locally-engaged stewards of the areas natural resources. Help people understand how to be effective natural resource managers in their part of the project area. For example, the goal of enhancing pollinator habitat is most likely best achieved by working with local residences who can provide the land and the labor to improve pollinator habitat, and who would most enjoy the immediate aesthetic benefits. Moreover, this is a strategy for which the specific tools are most likely already developed. CRWD has existing educational materials and guides for residential natural resource management.

Strategic acquisitions and/or easements: Meeting the management goal of enhanced connectivity of resources is all about the real estate. The City could identify specific properties for outright acquisition, or for negotiation of conservation easements. (This report identifies several properties in Section 4.3.6 Strategic Acquisitions/Easements).

Development of plant palettes for specific community types: CRWD and the City can have, on hand, an overall plan for developing and enhancing native plant communities in specific habitats and conditions. Rather than re-creating a planting list for every enhancement opportunity, CRWD and the City can have a set of plant palettes for various desired community types, e.g., upland prairie, wetland fringe, open woodland, etc., available for use as needed.

27

Creation of wildlife habitat structures: To support the goal of wildlife enhancement, it may be necessary to research and learn techniques for creating appealing habitats for a range of wildlife uses. In many instances, materials are readily available and/or already in place, and simply need some adjustments or augmentations to be suitable habitat for birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, etc. Utilizable habitats can be created inexpensively, and should be part of the management toolkit.

Policy development: Long-term preservation of natural resources may require re-visiting and potentially revising City policy and regulations regarding natural resources.

4.3 Specific Management Opportunities Listed below is a set of specific management options and opportunities, ranging from the simple to the complex, the practical to the theoretical, and the short-term to the long-term. They have been roughly divided into the type and/or purpose of management activity suggested, and for that reason there is some overlap. Some management suggestions reference the locations of parcels investigated in the field; for these see Figure 7 and Table 2. This is a comprehensive palette of potential management possibilities for the District 6 project area. Many of these suggested actions may require coordination with private landowners.

4.3.1 Invasive Removal and Clean-ups Remove Japanese knotweed along southwest side of railroad tracks in Parcel 17. Japanese

knotweed can be progressively eradicated by mowing around the beginning of June, and then applying glyphosate (Roundup) as the plant grows back. Other more powerful herbicides are also available.

Manage invasive forbs and grasses along the Gateway State Trail, starting at LOrient Street and continuing generally south to Maryland Avenue.

Remove Japanese knotweed from the southwest edge of Parcel 7. Consider purple loosestrife control in the wetland at Parcel 7.

Clean up concrete and soil piles in Parcel 11. Remove metal and wood debris from Parcel 4. Cut buckthorn understory. Install fencing or other property line delineation at the toe of the slope northeast of the Trout

Brook Nature Preserve Visitors Area parking lot to better define the property edge and prevent encroachment of vehicles from the auto salvage yard.

Remove buckthorn in wooded areas, especially in the north end of Parcel 1 (Cottage Avenue wetland).

Remove buckthorn in the southeast corner of the wetland at the corner of Arlington Avenue and Trout Brook Circle (Parcel 2).

4.3.2 Native Plant Community Enhancements Coordinate with the landowners of Parcel 9 (K-Mart location) to allow management of the

remnant prairie near the south end of the parking lot. A prescribed burn would control the non-native species present and help the prairie species. Also, coordinate with the K-Mart property maintenance staff to reduce the mowed area south of the parking lot and avoid mowing into the prairie grasses.

Coordinate with property management at the office building north of Parcel 8 to expand the vegetated buffer around the stormwater pond, and to plant additional upland native plants.

28

Coordinate with the designer and installation contractor of the restoration planting at the Trout Brook Nature Preserve Visitors Area parking lot to ensure that there is follow-up and maintenance on the planting, and correction of erosion on the slope.

Convert all, or at least the adjacent 15 feet, of the mowed turfgrass area along the southeast side of the Gateway State Trail in Parcel 6 to native grasses, forbs and/or trees.

Design prairie or other native plant community species lists and planting plans, at various scales and configurations, for all vacant or non-native dominated publicly-owned parcels.

4.3.3 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Develop basic information materials for local homeowners to encourage planting of native

perennial forb and shrub species beneficial to bees and other pollinators, and butterflies. Suggested species could include milkweed, blazing star, snowberry, asters, etc. Stress to homeowners the low-maintenance qualities of these plants, and their importance to insect pollinators.

Enhance Parcel 4 for wildlife utilization and to improve the quality and connectivity of the parcel to Parcel 7 to the south and to open green spaces to the north. Cut buckthorn and remove debris.

Wildlife habitat structures could be considered for the wetland edges and upland areas in Parcel 7.

Clear buckthorn in Parcels 22 and 23 to improve woodland bird habitat. Consider felling dying trees in the wetland at the corner of Arlington Avenue and Trout Brook

Circle (Parcel 2) to create wildlife habitat. Leave larger standing dead trees for cavity-nesting bird habitat.

4.3.4 Connectivity Enhancements Clean up, eradicate non-natives, and improve Parcels 3 and 4. This would provide a continuous

vegetated corridor from Arlington Avenue to Parcel 7 (a publicly-owned parcel). Continue the re-vegetation and native plant community enhancement that has been started

northeast of the Trout Brook Nature Preserve Visitors Area parking lot to make it contiguous with the wooded area between the south edge of the Auto Auction auto salvage yard and Maryland Avenue. This would help improve connectivity of vegetated open spaces at the southeast end of the project area and continuing south under Maryland Avenue to Trout Brook Nature Preserve.

4.3.5 Preservation Target Parcels The following parcels are priority areas for preservation:

Parcel 1 and all parcels that are part of the Cottage Avenue wetland. This is probably the most ecologically-valuable natural resource in the project area. If it cannot be acquired (see below), then CRWD and City policy should be to strictly prohibit development or further degradation of the wetland.

Similarly, if the forested portions of Parcels 13, 14 and 15 cannot be acquired, the City could work with the landowners to keep these wooded areas preserved. They are critical to maintaining a continuous greenway corridor through the project area.

Parcel 7 is publicly owned, and could provide passive recreation and wildlife habitat opportunities. Parcels 22 and 23 are publicly-owned and provide good wildlife habitat, despite their relative

isolation. Parcel 7 could be developed into a small park/rest stop along the Gateway State Trail.

29

Parcel 19, the abandoned railroad line, has scattered prairie grass communities along the top of the embankment that could be maintained and preserved.

4.3.6 Strategic Acquisitions/Easements Begin acquisitions or conservation easement negotiations for parcels or portions of parcels along

the entire Gateway State Trail as it passes through the project area. Contact landowners to acquire the wooded portions of Parcels 13, 14 and 15. If acquired and

preserved, these three parcels, along with the Trout Brook Nature Preserve Information Area to the south and the abandoned railroad line to the north, would establish a continuous greenway corridor through the project area and into open green space both south and north of the site.

Acquire Parcel 1 and all parcels that are part of the Cottage Avenue wetland. Develop the Parcels 10 & 16 area along the Gateway State Trail south of Maryland Avenue into a

pocket park. These are privately-owned parcels, and could be a strategic acquisition for the City. The site has access from the trail along the west and from LOrient Street to the east. The site would provide passive recreation opportunities along the trail, and could be a nice rest stop. A simple first step would be to clean out weeds and underbrush.

4.3.7 Other Natural Resource Management Actions Check inflow/outflow through the wetland at the corner of Arlington Avenue and Trout Brook

Circle (Parcel 2). The wetland tends to flow over the curb onto Trout Brook Circle. Several of the parcels contain opportunities to manage and treat local stormwater, and are

identified in Table 2.

30

12

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

18

20

21 22 23

19

17

16

8

24

Parcel No. Vegetation Classification Description Quality

Wetland Features

Estimated Slope Ownership

Natural Resource Management Opportunities

1 42310 - Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated

vegetation

Reed canary grass and cattail dominated wetland surrounded by buckthorn, boxelder, and cottonwood species.

C

Forested Wetland

adjacent to the Trout Brook Interceptor

1-5% Private Wetland

Remove buckthorn understory to improve habitat quality for birds.

Collect and treat stormwater from adjacent roads and properties

2 62310 - Altered/non-native grassland

with sparse deciduous trees - temporarily flooded

Low lying flat parcel dominated by reed canary grass and other exotic invasive

species. Cattail wetlands on western edge. NN

Emergent Wetland none Private

Wet Meadow/W

etland

Increase vegetation diversity for pollinator and bird species.

Manage reed canary and loosestrife Prevent flooding to adjacent properties through

BMPs

3 23112 - Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

Linear parcel dominated by smooth brome and burdock. Vegetation maintained to

height


Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday,

January 7, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota

REGULAR MEETING

I. A) Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers

Joe Collins

Shirley Reider

Seitu Jones

Mary Texer

Mike Thienes

Staff Present

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Bob Fossum, CRWD

Anna Eleria, CRWD

Public Attendees Kathryn Swanson, CAC

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda. No changes were requested.

Motion 15-001: Approve the January 7, 2015 agenda.

Reider/Texer

Unanimously approved

II. Public Comment For Items not on the Agenda

There were no public comments.

III. Permit Applications and Program Updates

A) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)

No update was available.

III. Special Reports

No Special Reports.

V. Action Items

A) AR: Approve Minutes of the December 17, 2014 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 15-002: Approve Minutes of the December 17, 2014.

January 21, 2015 Board Meeting

V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes

of January 7, 2015

DRAFT Regular Board Meeting

(Sylvander)


Texer/Reider

Unanimously approved

B) AR: Approve 2015 Special Grant Agreements (Zwonitzer)

At the December 3, 2014 meeting the CRWD Board awarded seven projects a total of $486,267 for the 2015

Special Grant. Award notices have been sent to recipients and staff are in the process of gathering information

needed to execute grant agreements.

At the time of the grant awards, approval was not given for executing the agreements. After grant agreements

are finalized, staff will continue to work with applican

january 21, 2015 board packet

Documents

meeting agenda review

regular board meeting

day review extension

regular meeting agenda

agenda regular

day review period

permit applications

npdes permit