SUSTAINABLE MAPLEWOOD 2050: Connectivity and Collaboration
Environmental Science, Policy and Management 4041 Report 7/8 Prepared for: The City of Maplewood
Prepared by:
Ashley Tabery (leader) Brandon Berger Jillian Chmiel Sean Demet
Meghan Karschnia
December 11, 2008 University of Minnesota
i
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank everyone who provided us with help, encouragement, time, knowledge and resources. We would especially like to thank the City of Maplewood for providing us with this opportunity to expand our knowledge on sustainable planning. We owe special thanks to following individuals for without them we would not have the foundation that made this project possible:
Simba Blood, North Saint Paul Environmental Advisory Commission Sharon Douchette, Woodbury Environmental Resources Coordinator
Shann Finwall, Maplewood Environmental Planner Bart Fischer, New Port Economic Development Director
Virginia Gaynor, Maplewood Open Space Naturalist Scott Kruse, St. Paul Forestry Supervisor Laurie Koehnle, North Saint Paul Community Relations David Kotilinek, North Saint Paul City Engineer Al Mahlum, North Saint Paul Finance Director Gina Mancini, North Saint Paul Police Department Administrative Support Jennifer McLoughlin, Woodbury Sustainability Specialist Carl Mueller, St. Paul DED Coordinator Steve Roe, North Saint Paul Recreation Director Kurt Schultz, St. Paul Planning and Economic Development Penelope Simison, St. Paul Planning and Economic Development Senior Planner Bob Streetar, Oakdale Community Development Director
Finally we would like to specifically extend our gratitude to Dr. Kristen C. Nelson, Dr. Gary Johnson, Stephanie Grayzeck and Ben Puhl.
ii
Executive Summary
The City of Maplewood is striving to be Sustainable by 2050, and the University of Minnesota wants to support them in defining and taking steps to reach their goals. As students in an Environmental Science, Policy and Management senior capstone course, we were more than ready, and willing to complete this project during the fall of 2008. This report focuses on facilitating communication and collaboration among Maplewood and its’ surrounding communities; specifically evaluating environmental programs, such as invasive species, deer management, and tree disease/tree restoration management programs, as well as existing green corridors. We sought to make partnerships among communities an easier task. We gathered data using a variety of methods to understand the five neighboring communities, including interviews with city administrators from each community, document review, and comparisons of city ordinances and comprehensive plans. Overall, some collaboration currently exists between Maplewood, North St. Paul, and Oakdale, but little or none is present between Maplewood, Woodbury, and St. Paul. Ordinances regarding shoreland and wetland are determined by state or watershed regulations. Tree ordinances are established at the city-level, and currently no ordinances are in place regarding green corridors. Environmental programs do exist in many of the cities, and some collaborative projects have already taken place. There are many possibilities for cities to strengthen their own programs and then work to continually collaborate with surrounding cities It is our hope that the following recommendations will help aid Maplewood in their pursuit and success of a Sustainable Maplewood by 2050.
• Contract a forester from a city surrounding Maplewood in order to fulfill Green City USA agreement and create connectivity in landscape management.
• Exchange plans for green corridors with surrounding cities, just as
comprehensive plans are shared, to ensure the best land use planning and to encourage discussion about green corridors.
• Focus and strengthen Maplewood’s capacity to increase city visibility and
ability to collaborate.
• Maintain and expand participation in current collaborative environmental initiatives to enhance Maplewood’s status as a sustainable city.
• Strengthen community environmental programs including invasive species
removal, tree disease management and tree reimbursement by delegating
iii
management responsibilities to qualified personnel, involving community members, and collaborating with surrounding communities.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables..........................................................................................v Introduction................................................................................................................1 Vision Statement...................................................................................................2 Objectives .............................................................................................................3 Methods......................................................................................................................3 Site Description.....................................................................................................3 Research Techniques ............................................................................................5 Document Review.................................................................................................5 Interviews..............................................................................................................6 Findings......................................................................................................................6 Comprehensive Plans Set the Foundation.............................................................6 Ordinances Focus on Specific Environmental Issues ...........................................7 Policy Implementation ..........................................................................................8 Recommendations......................................................................................................9 Recommendation 1. Contract a forester from a city surrounding Maplewood in order to fulfill Tree City USA agreement and create connectivity in landscape management ...........................................................9 Recommendation 2. Exchange plans for green corridors with surrounding cities, just as comprehensive plans are shared, in order to ensure the best land use planning and to encourage discussion about green corridors .......................................................................................10 Recommendation 3. Focus and strengthen Maplewood’s capacity in order to increase city visibility and the ability to collaborate with other municipalities.........................................................................................11 Recommendation 4. Maintain and expand participation in current collaborative environmental initiatives in order to enhance Maplewood’s status as a sustainable city.........................................................12 Recommendation 5. Strengthen community environmental programs including invasive species removal, tree disease management and tree reimbursement by delegating management responsibilities to qualified personnel, involving community members, and collaborating with surrounding communities ........................................................................13 Conclusion .................................................................................................................16 References..................................................................................................................16 Appendices.................................................................................................................18
v
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Land use of Maplewood Minnesota .........................................................4 Figure 2. Maplewood within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area ............................5 Table 1: Presence of ordinances ...............................................................................8
1
Introduction
As Henry Ford once said, “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.” This concept applies to cities when they are working to become sustainable communities. Wildlife, people, and businesses do not stop at a municipal border, rather they move throughout the larger landscape. All cities need to work together, not individually, in order to create a sustainable landscape. Local sustainability strategies are difficult but a strategic regionalization of resources allows for sustainable economic development and planning (Gibbs and Jonas, 2001). For these reasons cities need to come together and work across borders. Maplewood is embarking on a plan for a sustainable community by 2050 and the Environmental Science, Policy and Management senior capstone class students at University of Minnesota were given the task of helping Maplewood reach their sustainability goals. The final reports cover ecological topics such as vegetation, parks, and run-off/impervious surfaces. Other reports address the development of a Green Work Place for energy, transportation and waste. This report focuses on the concepts of collaboration, the importance of connectivity, and the significance of an individual community’s capacity. There are many benefits in collaborating with neighboring cities. A collaborative approach involves all parties in cooperative learning and understanding in order to foster creative solutions that serve multiple interests (Forester, 1999). In addition, collaboration helps to minimize future conflicts related to land use, planning, and policies. Since shared watersheds, wildlife populations, roads, trails and corridors physically connect neighboring cities to one another, collaboration can decrease possible conflicts by ensuring communication before a policy or land use decision is made that may interfere with connectivity.
Connectivity is defined as the degree to which a landscape facilitates or impedes movement of organisms among resource patches (Fahrig and Tischendorf, 2000) and is important in sustainable development for many reasons. A landscape connected by similar land use allows for the fluid movement of wildlife and/or people through the area by eliminating the possibility of barriers. These barriers could be highways, industrial or retail development, or dense housing. When these barriers are in the path of green corridors they limit the safe movement of wildlife. Connectivity is also important to the landscape because it allows for shared ecosystem services, such as water storage and filtration, that may otherwise be separated by the patchwork nature of the landscape. Increased communication and collaborative planning also allows for greater capacity when it comes to getting things done. The process of indentifying capacities and assets, individual and community wide, is the first step in community regeneration and sustainability (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1996). It becomes possible to reach goals that one city may not be able to achieve alone. Some cities have enough resources to focus on their issues as well as extend efforts to other cities’ endeavors; others may need to pool
2
resources to get something done. Mobilizing resources permits communities to accomplish difficult and nonroutine goals (Stone, 2008). Sharing resources, such as staff, city recreational centers, emergency services and other services, allows cities to save time and money.
As a part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area, the City of Maplewood is a first ring community with many cities in this section of the metropolitan area and many shared borders. Maplewood may be on the extreme end, sharing its borders with 11 surrounding communities. We focused on five of these municipalities including St. Paul, Oakdale, Woodbury, Newport, and North St. Paul. The final report provides recommendations on how Maplewood can enhance their capacity to collaborate and how they can increase connectivity with these surrounding cities.
Maplewood identified the following statement as their vision for a sustainable community: The City of Maplewood, in order to ensure stewardship of its environment, will promote sustainable development and practices for the preservation, design, and maintenance of its natural and built environments. Developments and practices should maintain or enhance economic opportunity and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment that people, economies, and ecological systems depend on (Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, Draft Sustainability Chapter).
Vision Statement Following the tradition of Maplewood, the collective vision for the class project is as follows:
We are committed to working with the City of Maplewood to assist them in achieving their vision of a sustainable community. We share their goal of using innovative solutions to improve and preserve environmental integrity while promoting economic opportunity and community well-being for current and future generations.
Many of the watersheds, lakes, parks, and open space within Maplewood extend beyond political boundaries. In order to successfully promote sustainable development and minimize environmental impact within Maplewood, efforts must be extended beyond the city boundaries. The following vision statement guided this report:
We are dedicated to Maplewood’s vision of a community connected to its surrounding communities in the combined effort to protect and sustain the natural features of the area.
3
Objectives To support this vision the report objectives are the following:
Review the 2008 Comprehensive Plan of Maplewood as well as those of Oakdale, St. Paul, North St. Paul, Woodbury, and Newport,
Compare ordinances and policies across these communities to find similarities and differences,
Review the literature to identify advantages and disadvantages of potential projects for green corridors and environmental programs, and
Identify potential collaboration efforts among cities, ways to increase capacity, and make recommendations for steps to achieve common goals.
Methods
Site Description
Maplewood is a fully developed, first ring suburb of Minnesota’s capital city St. Paul, located in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area (Figure 1). It is uniquely shaped; with a mile wide “necktie” that runs north-south from the south-eastern corner of Maplewood’s main area (Figure 2). The city has 11 surrounding communities, in part because of its unique shape. It also has many major roads within its borders. The main roads that run east-west through the city are Interstates 94, 694, and 494 along with Highway 36. Interstate 35E and Highway 61 run north-south through the city. Maplewood is a growing community, with a population of 36,145 residents in 2007, which shows a 2.4% population increase since 2000. The majority of Maplewood’s citizens are between the ages of 25-54, with a median age of 37.8. More than 90% of Maplewood residents have a high school or greater education. Health, education, social services, retail and manufacturing sectors account for 46.2% of Maplewood resident employment. Many residents are employed outside of Maplewood, commuting an average of 23 minutes to work each day. The median resident income is $51,596 with 19.6% of residents making less than $25,000 a year, 38.5% making between $25,000 and $60,000, while 41.8% make more than $60,000 a year (City of Maplewood, 2008). Maplewood is a city attractive to all ages, as it boasts a wide variety of activities. Maplewood has a Nature Center that has a 620 ft. floating boardwalk to observe aquatic life and a Community Center with an indoor water park and fitness opportunities. As part of the Ramsey-Washington Watershed District, Maplewood boasts more than 35 city parks and 13 neighborhood preserves. These neighborhood preserves conserve more than 268 acres within the city (Maplewood, 2008). Maplewood also houses part of the beautiful Phalen-Casey Chain of Lakes. The natural resources of this city provide countless recreation activities for its residents in a variety of natural settings (City of Maplewood, 2008).
4
Figure 1: Land use of Maplewood Minnesota (Maplewood, 2008).
5
Figure 2: Maplewood within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (source: Maplewood, 2008). Research Techniques
We used interviews and document review to develop insights and recommendations for the City of Maplewood. These two approaches offered a unique perspective on the possibility for improving community collaboration, including environmental programs and capacity building. We collected this data throughout September and October of 2008.
Document Review
The first component of the document review dealt with the Comprehensive Plans and City Ordinances of five bordering communities: Newport, North St. Paul, Oakdale, St. Paul, and Woodbury (Appendix A). The Maplewood staff selected these communities for the study due to their location along the southern neck-tie of Maplewood (Figure 1).We summarized each comprehensive plan based on criteria (Antrop 2005) that focused specifically on these plans. The criteria analyzed the community’s approach to sustainable landscapes of the three components of sustainability: social capital, economic capital, and natural capital. We recorded the presence or absence of these components in the comprehensive plans. From this, we were able to evaluate plans by identifying similarities and differences between the communities.
6
Based on Maplewood planners’ requests, we identified ordinances relating to shorelands, wetlands, stormwater, green corridors, and urban trees. The different ordinances were assembled in a table to display the information more succinctly and allow for easy comparison. In addition to community ordinances, we identified regional and state agencies ordinances that dealt with shorelands, wetlands, stormwater, green corridors, and urban trees. The regional and state agencies we consulted included the Metropolitan Council, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Ramsey County, Washington County, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The second document review involved environmental programs and documents from the five communities. This data was necessary because comprehensive plans do not include every effort made by the city. This yielded information about the status of their programs and practices. We considered documents that related to subjects such as green corridors, sustainability, and vegetation management. While there were no uniform criteria for evaluating these documents, this review documented each community’s programs.
Interviews
Interviews offered us a detailed, qualitative understanding of the five communities that surveys and observations could not provide. These interviews were conducted with city administrators from Newport, North St. Paul, Oakdale, St. Paul, and Woodbury (Appendix A). Their job titles ranged from community development director to environmental resource coordinator. The first round of interviews focused on the existing practices. We used ten common questions with additional ones specific to each communities (Appendix B). The questions pertained to their green corridors, environmental commissions, nature programming, and existing community collaboration. The first informational interviews were semiformal and conducted in person, ranging from 30 minutes to an hour. There were also informal interviews over the phone or via e-mail that pertained to each community’s capacity. We compared the responses offering us a detailed look at the status of each community in regards to green corridors and environmental operations and policies, as well as differences and similarities among communities. Additionally, we analyzed each community’s financial, human, physical, and social capacity. Working with representatives from the communities we tried to identify the trends and capacity overtime. This analysis allowed us to explore opportunities for collaboration and potential conflicts.
Findings
Comprehensive Plans Set the Foundation
Comprehensive plans for the six communities—Maplewood, St Paul, North St Paul, Oakdale, Woodbury and Newport—set the foundation for sustainability but they can be very general (Appendix C). All the plans addressed many familiar key points including housing, parks and recreation, and cultural diversity. In addition, we found that cities were addressing sustainability, but details regarding these ideas and initiatives were presented in other documents. For example, St Paul has an entire “Sustainable St Paul”
7
document that outlines their sustainability goals and how they are going to reach them (St. Paul, 2008). The comprehensive plans addressed energy, but focused only on reducing energy, and did not discuss pursuing renewable energy sources. However, overall each city clearly approaches the idea of sustainability, and embraces actions that foster it.
Points that were missing or could have been better developed included the role of education and the urban-rural link. All six comprehensive plans did not fully address sustainability education, as the education system as a whole is not typically included in comprehensive plans. The education system for each community is addressed by their respective school districts, but these programs do less with adult populations and informal educational programs. However, education was recognized in each comprehensive plan as an integral tool for expanding awareness and knowledge on specific issues. Finally, one important aspect that was missing is the link between urban and rural areas. The Twin Cities depends on rural communities to provide with food and other products. The interdependency in this relationship is an important sustainability concept that was not recognized in each city’s comprehensive plans. The Metropolitan Council requires that bordering communities share their comprehensive plans. But plans for other sustainability issues are currently not available to all, and therefore it is difficult to know how other cities are addressing sustainability. For example, with comprehensive land use plans, if one city plans to have an industrial park this information is made available to surrounding cities and they can plan accordingly. This reduces potential future conflicts. However, collaboration on sustainability issues seems to occur after the problem has presented itself. For example, if a tree disease breaks out on the border of one city and spreads to its neighboring city, that neighboring city is not going to be happy about the resources they now have to put into the tree disease problem. Potential conflict can be prevented if cities work together. This reactive approach is somewhat due to the current state of our environment, but now the concept of sustainability is pushing planners to think far into the future.
Ordinances Focus on Specific Environmental Issues
We found consistencies and variations when comparing the city ordinances for communities surrounding southern Maplewood (Appendix D). While the ordinances varied, this did not seem to present a problem because each ordinance was a suitable fit for the context. Ordinances pertaining to wetlands are determined by the federal Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, and ordinances discussing stormwater and shoreland are set by Watershed Districts under the Clean Water Act, therefore, there is a high degree of consistency among these ordinances. Some cities go beyond what is required by Watershed Districts and create additional ordinances. Maplewood, North St. Paul, St. Paul, and Oakdale have an environmental utility fee that goes toward stormwater management. These fees are based on the percentage of impervious surfaces on a property. Stormwater ordinances are well developed and understood, but where there are strengths in these particular ordinances there are weaknesses in others. For example, there are no specific ordinances pertaining to green corridors in any of the cities, nor is there any regional/federal governance.
8
Table 1: Presence of ordinances Maplewood St. Paul Woodbury Oakdale North St. Paul Newport
Wetland Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present
Shoreland Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Stormwater Present Present Present Present Present Present Urban Trees Present Present Present Present Present Present
Green Corridors
Not Present Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present
The presence of an ordinance pertaining to wetlands, shorelands, stormwater, urban trees and green corridors was determined by studying each community’s code of ordinances. Not present assumes that state statutes are used. However, in the case of wetland ordinances all cities have ordinances but they are only present to be in compliance with 1991 Wetland Conservation Act.
Environmental programs often coincide with city ordinances. For cities such as St. Paul and Woodbury information about their environmental programs was readily available on their websites. Cities like Newport have environmental programs, but it was necessary to contact city staff for details. All cities have tree disease, and invasive species, but some do not explicitly encourage public participation. Tree reimbursement programs are not present in all cities. This type of program is sometimes administered as a tree give-away on one day of the year, like Oakdale’s Arbor Day give-away. Environmental programs are present in these six communities, but managed in different ways, and yield different results. Overall, each ordinance is relatively specific rather than general, and most often mandatory rather than voluntary. The ordinances typically discuss penalties for mis-action, and rarely discuss incentives for desired actions. There are a few exceptions, as some cities, including Woodbury, have a tree reimbursement program that typically recruits 100-120 participants.
Policy Implementation
To understand how plans and ordinances are implemented, we determined the trends, programming and status of the program areas including green corridors and nature, as well as public involvement and collaboration with Maplewood (Appendix E). The cities currently working on green corridors include Woodbury, St. Paul and Oakdale, but they have limited resources dedicated to the corridors. For example, Oakdale acknowledges the existence of their corridors but does not currently maintain them for this purpose. North St. Paul identified a park trail that could be considered a green corridor; however, it is not defined as such. Currently, nature programming is offered in three communities: Oakdale, Maplewood, and St. Paul. North St. Paul has an area designated for nature programming, the Environmental Learning Center, but no structure has been built. Newport’s Bailey Park is considered a school forest and provides environmental learning for students. Woodbury has partnered with the Dodge Nature Center of West Saint Paul in Dakota County to provide nature programming to its residents. There is a variety of environmental education throughout these communities, ranging from highly structured and
9
programmed classes at a nature center to more informal community education through participation in projects such as Dodge Nature Center’s Young Explorers Program.
While they were discussing programs, each city representative identified a program or attribute they were proud of and that could be a model for others (Appendix F). Woodbury and Newport mentioned their stormwater programs; St. Paul, their National Great River Park Framework; Oakdale, its history of fast project implementation; and North St. Paul identified its Green Power and trash management programs. Everyone was willing to extend help to other cities by sharing their successes. Communities involve residents in policymaking and program decisions through commissions. Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale, and Woodbury have volunteer-based environmental commissions. This has an impact on the amount of communication within the community and is an indicator of how much communication could take place between municipalities. We found there were very few commission members who want to sit down and talk with other city’s commission members, but there are also several commission members who are interested in working together. The environmental commission members of Maplewood and North St Paul collaborated together on projects such as buckthorn removal. This means some enthusiasm for collaboration exists in these commissions, and partnerships could be very useful for future projects.
This internal involvement among residents can extend across municipal boundaries. Existing collaboration with Maplewood does occur on a small scale in for North St. Paul and Oakdale. Newport representatives stressed the importance of working with neighbors, but have not had much contact with cities across county borders. Woodbury and St. Paul representatives expressed willingness to be involved in future collaboration but many mention that it was important to start small on task-related activities and then build.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1. Contract a forester from a city surrounding Maplewood in order to fulfill Tree City USA agreement and create connectivity in landscape management.
Maplewood is a participant in Tree City USA, a program that provides many benefits in the form of “direction, technical assistance, public attention, and national recognition (Arbor Day Foundation, 2008).” Tree City USA has four standards and the first is that participating cities must have a Tree Board or Department. One way to fulfill this requirement is by hiring a forester (Arbor Day Foundation, 2008). A part-time forester would help reduce the workload of the overextended Maplewood Nature Center staff. The Nature Center is presently experiencing increased demands on its staff because it is running the tree disease program. This program is based on city ordinances and can,
10
therefore, be considered indispensable. A part-time forester would guide tree management, providing an opportunity to extend efforts beyond removing dead trees. If attempts were made beyond preservation it may be possible to focus on increasing canopy coverage for Maplewood 2050. Maplewood could then compete for the Growth Award from Tree City USA which could increase the benefits of the program (Arbor Day Foundation, 2008). As expressed by an Environmental Commission member there is a strong interest in hiring a forester to help fulfill the Tree City USA agreement. Maplewood used to have a forester and still has some funds available to hire someone part-time. Maplewood can explore several possibilities with surrounding communities. The first community to contact would be Oakdale; they have a forester that they are willing to contract out. Another city to meet with is St Paul. The St. Paul forestry division, does not have the time to extend their work at the moment but mentioned that a future relation may be possible.
One challenge in hiring or commissioning a forester is writing the initial contract to fit essential needs with existing resources. A city staff member and commission member will have to agree on priorities. They will have to determine if forestry is a top priority, and if so, they must determine what tasks must be accomplished by the forester. If forestry is agreed upon as a priority then funds must support these priorities. The greatest risk is that short-term decisions may reduce funds. Vegetation management is necessary for long-term sustainability (see report 2/8 in the series). Forestry services will allow Maplewood to accomplish their goal of being a Tree City USA member and comply with their tree ordinances. If Maplewood attains a forester they will be able to extend their efforts beyond preservation and aim to increase tree canopy cover.
Recommendation 2. Exchange plans for green corridors with surrounding cities, just as comprehensive plans are shared, in order to ensure the best land use planning and to encourage discussion about green corridors.
Green Corridors are currently planned at the city level, with limited planning occurring regionally. But there are no city or regional ordinances that build a planning framework for green corridors across the landscape that benefit wildlife, increase land values, and provide citizens with a better quality of life. A connected corridor network can increase the benefits of an existing unconnected corridor area. Neighboring cities working on creating their own green corridors may identify opportunities for collaborating that would increase the overall benefits. The Metropolitan Council requires cities to exchange comprehensive plans with surrounding cities. Cities could voluntarily agree to share this information about their green infrastructure, making it available to everyone, including city staff, commission members, and citizens. Not every city does green corridor planning but those who do not can participate as observers. Overtime they may become active in coordinated efforts.
11
Comprehensive land use planning has already been beneficial because planning ahead reduces conflict and can maximize land use. Green corridor planning has similar benefits.
Recommendation 3: Focus and strengthen Maplewood’s capacity in order to increase city visibility and the ability to collaborate with other municipalities.
Collaboration between Maplewood and its neighboring communities is problematic when everyone is unaware of what other communities are working on. Insufficient communication and lack of visibility for programs are the primary causes for this quandary. Communication can be challenging because each community deals with natural resource issues in a different way. They delegate the responsibility differently, fund the projects differently, and often work on different time scales. All these differences present a formidable challenge to cities interested in collaboration.
Communication and visibility in Maplewood is no different. Maplewood city government has experienced a tightening budget and an increase in demand from the residents and other levels of government. As a result, the Maplewood staff have been absorbing more responsibilities and stretching their resources to meet the multiple needs. The scramble to meet the residents’ needs with shrinking resources causes multiple natural resource problems to be dealt with by staff trained in one area. Changes in responsibilities require focusing on the basic tasks within a community, contributing to minimal communication between communities and a lack of visibility on a larger scale. With city staff at or beyond capacity, problems surface when new ideas or demands have to be incorporated into the ongoing workload. To assist with this challenge, the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District representatives believe they have sufficient staff to deal with new initiatives that may be presented. For example, if Maplewood has a program they would like to launch but are uncertain about interest in collaboration, or possibility of participation, they could first approach the Watershed District using their knowledge and staff capacity. The Watershed District is one agency that can increase visibility and communication among member cities, serving as a foundation for successful collaboration can be created. One barrier to collaboration is the lack of information available for other communities to learn about what is happening outside their own municipality. To increase communication about key natural resource problems there are several things Maplewood can do. First, Maplewood can identify who is working on critical natural resource issues and if collaboration is possible on specific programs. A sample list, including the five southern bordering communities, addresses issues such as invasive species, nuisance animal management, tree diseases and tree reimbursement (Appendix F). Maplewood can start a trend by providing this information to the surrounding communities, asking for the corrections and additions. This will insure that every community has the correct contacts available if they want to consult on a single issue or begin collaboration across communities.
Second, Maplewood could design and maintain their website so it is clear what natural resources programs and policies they have and who is in charge of overseeing each
12
program. In addition to their own community website, Maplewood can participate in websites that promote sustainable programs such as Do it Green Minnesota and NextStep from the Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network (Do it Green, 2008; Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network, 2008). These websites function as a forum for people and communities to share ideas and suggestions with others across the state. These websites can broadcast and promote the work of Maplewood to neighboring municipalities and the greater Metro Area, along with increasing program visibility to its residents. In addition to website resources, Maplewood can use the quarterly distribution of “Maplewood Seasons” to share their programs with neighboring city administrators establishing one more communication link between communities.
There are some challenges that Maplewood may face while implementing this recommendation. First, the main challenge of this recommendation is the reorganization of natural resource responsibilities. Assess and delegating responsibility takes times, there are substantial challenges start this process, not to mention the challenge of learning new responsibilities. This recommendation needs a significant push to gain some traction for activities across the landscape, but Maplewood has the opportunity to start the ball rolling. Finally, the challenge may be outside of Maplewood. There may be surrounding municipalities that are not looking to collaborate. Our interviews suggest otherwise, but there is a chance that a city may not be interested once they consider internal demands on their time and resources. Focusing and strengthening Maplewood’s internal communication capacity allows for increased visibility for the natural resource programs as well as potential collaboration with others which leads to resource sharing, program strengthening, and successful problem solving. Increasing visibility has many benefits; it allows residents to understand city operations better making transparency more attainable and serves as one step toward attaining its goal of being a role model for its citizens. By focusing and strengthening the capacity of Maplewood, increased visibility of programs and improved municipal communication will yield great results for collaborative projects.
Recommendation 4: Maintain and expand participation in current collaborative environmental initiatives in order to enhance Maplewood’s status as a sustainable city.
Maplewood is currently involved in many constructive environmental initiatives including Metro Greenways, Tree City USA, and the Mayors Climate Change Agreement. Maintaining active participation in environmental initiatives is an important cornerstone for Sustainable Maplewood 2050. Maplewood has the desire to be a leader for other cities by setting an example of sustainability but currently there is no official tool that Maplewood is using to demonstrate their progress to other cities. To achieve sustainability Maplewood needs assistance in determining priorities, and setting checkpoints to assess their progress and evaluate whether goals have been met. Maplewood also needs to promote their efforts in order to be an accessible leader. The current programs are useful because they help promote Maplewood to surrounding communities and can help the city connect to other cities through common goals. Along with maintaining these agreements, Maplewood could expand to include ICLEI, and
13
either ICLEI Star Community Index (ICLEI, 2007) or Minnesota’s Green Star Cities (see Report 4/8 in the series for more detail on Green Star Cities).
Two of the five cities surrounding Maplewood currently use ICLEI to help in their efforts to be more sustainable. Both of the cities have found ICLEI to be a useful tool, and as one person noted the program is a “necessary tool for assessing progress.” In addition, ICLEI will be providing a program called the Star Community Index designed to “provide local government with a standardized framework to plan, track and claim their environmental and sustainability work” (ICLEI, 2007). The program documents performance and progress so cities can be recognized for their efforts. The ICLEI Star Community Index is open to any city that wishes to participate. It launches in 2010 giving Maplewood the chance to be on the forefront of a new sustainability program.
The challenges associated with participating in these programs can include financial costs, maintaining the human resources to implement the programs, the application process for new programs, and fulfilling all of the requirements for each program. ICLEI currently charges approximately $600 a year for their services which could put a strain on Maplewood’s budget. It may also be difficult to determine who would be responsible for making sure the programs are going as planned as well as finding people to implement the programs. New programs are often difficult due to the personnel and time needed. However, of all these difficulties fulfilling the requirements of the programs will be the most costly and time consuming. Some of these challenges can be overcome by utilizing Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall, and the Green Team. Together they could help with coordination, assessment, and implementation. Maplewood also has a start on addressing these challenges through the City Council who has demonstrated their commitment to initiatives that support the overall quality of life, economics, and the environment for Maplewood. In addition, the Environmental Commission could help with oversight, and support for specific decisions and directions. Environmental initiatives such as ICLEI can facilitate decision making, enable peer learning, increase accountability in actions, and “create roadmaps for cities to track and achieve climate and sustainability goals.” Maintaining and expanding participation in environmental initiatives can be an important foundation for assisting Maplewood in achieving sustainability.
Recommendation 5: Strengthen community environmental programs including invasive species removal, tree disease management and tree reimbursement by delegating management responsibilities to qualified personnel, involving community members, and collaborating with surrounding communities.
Environmental programs are typically run and managed at the city level, even though these programs are meant to address problems that occur at a landscape scope. The management of these responsibilities often requires knowledge, time, and money. Most smaller communities do not have abundant resources available to them, but yet they are required to have some of these environmental programs. Typically a Public Works
14
Department is asked to address environmental or sustainability issues when environmental programs were not originally included in employee job descriptions. Successful environmental programs also require participation by community members. How involved community members are depends on many factors including, the concerns residents have, their available time, and how much influence they think they can have. It is not possible for residents to participate when they are not informed about the importance and reasons for the environmental program. For example, during a collaborative buckthorn removal in November of 2008, several commission members were present from two cities, but very few community members were involved.
Currently across municipal levels, there is minimal ongoing collaboration around environmental programs. Collaboration does occur every so often but these type of programs need to be planned far in advance so that all cities can plan for the event. Most of these cities tend to work primarily on programs within their city, but problems such as tree disease and invasive species do not stop at city borders. There is great potential for working together, but it has not been realized yet. A study done in 2008 on Oak Wilt Management helps illustrate some of the problems and challenges that environmental programs present. The study identified five themes that are likely to influence the success of oak wilt management programs. These themes are: (1) enforced Potential Spore Producing Tree removal ordinances; (2) provided sufficient local resources, and were aware of the risks of potential decreases in state funding: (3) recognized differences in management techniques based upon urban or rural setting; (4) reduced differences in program goals; and (5) met state or regional goals (Kokotovich and Zeilnger, 2008). Successful oak wilt management programs recognize and address the social side of tree disease management. These findings do not directly transfer to other tree disease programs, or invasive programs, but they present a few basic social concepts. Ordinances that guide the functions of environmental programs do exist, but some cities enforce them better than others. Some cities do not enforce as strictly because it is not their primary goal. The two primary goals of Oak Wilt management in the metro area are, to slow the spread of Oak Wilt, and to preserve the Oak Resource (Kokotovich and Zeilnger, 2008). These are both very ecologically based goals, but goals that were focused on less were those that addressed landowner issues such as property value and economic ability to pay for tree removal. A landowner is going to get involved with the management of tree disease when there are benefits to them, such as an increase in property values due to the number of healthy trees on their land. Currently, tree disease management goals are ecologically based, but social goals should be included more often. This suggests that cities, including Maplewood, are not involving community members in environmental programs as much as they could be. By focusing on citizen concerns and then gaining their support, environmental program participation will increase and ordinance compliance will increase as well.
The work done between Watershed Districts and municipalities begins to connect citizens to their communities. There are successful programs that involve citizens, in water quality monitoring and macro-invertebrate monitoring programs. Watershed Districts
15
also foster communication and collaboration between communities, although communities communicate primarily about Watershed District initiatives and not on a regular basis. In Maplewood and other communities the foundation for environmental programs is present, but it still needs to be strengthened. Communities can first focus on involving their own citizens, by first clarify why the programs are important. For example, this could be done by presenting information pamphlets that explain the ecology of a tree disease problem and the importance of addressing it. Another example would be to hand out flyers to neighbors when a diseased tree is being removed so they understand the impact of the problem on their immediate surroundings. If a city involves their citizens in environmental programs everyone can work together, and the workload of the city staff may be eased. For example, if citizens are organized into tree disease monitoring groups, foresters or environmental program managers do not need to spend time looking for diseased trees.
After citizens participate, the management of environmental programs can be strengthened. If the Public Works Department is going to manage the invasive species program, tree disease program, or any other environmental program, they must understand their role and be given training for new responsibilities. After these first steps are taken, cities can then reach out and collaborate with surrounding cities. Collaboration can occur in two ways, either sharing services/staff, or planning and participating in programs together. Sharing specialized staff will help reduce time and money required for environmental programs. Working together on projects will help create ownership and a sense of community formed around a resource. This attachment can lead to continued collaboration. It takes effort and planning to collaborate with surrounding cities. For example, it might be hard to organize a date and time for a buckthorn removal project, but deciding on a few yearly collaborative events in advance may reduce conflicts with other events. It is also difficult to organize a collaborative event if city staff members do not know who the proper contacts are in their surrounding cities. City staff is always going to be changing, therefore it is necessary to establish and maintain communication so the proper contacts can be reached. Working together helps pool resources and expertise, which increases the ability of cities to carry out their environmental programs. There may be cities that do not want to work together, in this case it may be best to start out with a small collaboration among three cities. Not everything can be accomplished right away. Each city can prioritize their goals, and be realistic. For example, cities may start by tackling the problem of invasive species. Every city representative need to understand their specific interest and the across cities identified shared goals. It takes time to implement change, but if citizens are involved, staff are knowledgeable, and cities collaborate change will occur.
16
Conclusion
By coming together in the combined effort of protecting and sustaining the natural features of the area, future conflicts between communities are minimized, and increased collaborative capacity allows for creative solutions that serve multiple interests. Frequent communication between communities will allow cities to save time and resources by knowing who best to contact on a particular issue. Future collaboration between Maplewood and its neighbors based on common goals, will allow for the achievement of goals that may have once seemed too large for one city to tackle on its own.
References
Antrop, M. 2005. Sustainable landscapes: Contradiction, fiction or Utopia? Landscape
and Urban Planning 187-197. Arbor Day Foundation. What is Tree City USA? 2008.
http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/about.cfm (accessed 2008). City of Maplewood. 2008. Comprehensive Plan Draft. Comprehensive Plan, Maplewood. Creating energy smart communities. April 20, 2004. http://smartcommunities.ncat.org
(accessed October 15, 2008). Do it Green. 2008. Do it Green Minnesota. www.doitgreen.org (accessed 2008). Emprace Open Space. 2008. A Look at Community Capacity To Conserve Open Space in
the Twin Cities Area. Rep.No. 1000 Friends of Minnesota. MN: Embrace Open Space.
Gibbs, D., and J. Andrew. 2001. Rescaling and regional governance: The English
regional development agencies and the environment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19:269-288.
ICLEI. 2007. New U.S. Star COmmunity Index to help local governments measure,
declare "green" status. November 28, 2007. http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=7289&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7498&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=2418&cHash=aeba43483e (accessed 2008).
Kokotovich, A., and A. Zeilnger. 2008. A few sides of 'the Social' in Oak Wilt Risk
Management: A study of 64 local programs and their relationships to state
17
management through in-depth interviews. St. Paul, MN: Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota.
Kretzmann, J., and J. McKnight. 1996. Program on community development: Mapping
community capacity. Chicago: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Maplewood. 2008. Maplewood Minnesota: Together We Can. ci.maplewood.mn.us
(accessed 2008). Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. 2000. From policy to reality: Model ordinances
for sustainable development. St. Paul, MN: Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning.
Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network. 2008. NextStep: Taking the Next Step
Toward a Sustainable Future. www.nextstep.state.mn.us (accessed 2008).
Newport. 2008. An Historic City on the Mississippi River Newport Minnesota. www.newport.govoffice.com (accessed 2008).
Newport. 2008. The City of Newport Comprehensive Plan Draft. North St. Paul. 2008. North St. Paul Minnesota. www.ci.north-saint-paul.mn.us/
(accessed 2008). North St. Paul. 2008. The City of North St. Paul Comprehensive Plan Draft. Oakdale. 2008. The City of Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Draft. Oakdale. 2008. Official Site of the City of Oakdale, Minnesota. ci.oakdale.mn.us
(accessed 2008). St. Paul. 2008. Sustainable Saint Paul. http://www.stpaul.gov/index.asp?NID=429
(accessed 2008). St. Paul. 2008. The City of St. Paul Comprehensive Plan Draft. Stone, C. 2008. Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy
approach. Journal of Urban Affairs 15(1). Tisechendorf, L. and L. Fahrig. 2000. On the Usage and Measurement of Landscape
Connectivity. Oikos 90(1):7-19. Woodbury. 2008. The City of Woodbury Comprehensive Plan Draft. Woodbury. 2008. Woodbury Minnesota. www.ci.woodbury.mn.us (accessed 2008).
18
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Comprehensive Plans Available Online, 2008 Appendix B. Interview Questions Appendix C. Comprehensive Plan Review Chart Appendix D. Ordinance for Six Cities Appendix E. Interview Topic Summary Appendix F. List of City Contacts Appendix G. Ordinance Online Sources Locations
19
Appendix A: Comprehensive Plans That Are Available Online Maplewood Draft 2008 http://mn-maplewood.civicplus.com/DocumentCenterii.asp?FID=85 St. Paul http://www.stpaul.gov/index.asp?nid=355 Woodbury’s Plan from 2000 http://ci.woodbury.mn.us/PLANNING/cpbychapter.html Newport
http://www.newport.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={A6EB9EAA-F68A-457F-8822-C7DDECAED473}&DE={DC9721C0-6911-4AF6-9718-740DFF500539}
North Saint Paul’s from 1998
http://www.ci.north-saintpaul.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={280DAC33-CAE-48F0=AE7D-508A7C855D84}&DE=
20
Appendix B: Interview Questions Interview Questions for _______________ Date____________ Interview by ________________________
1. Is there any sustainable practice that your city takes pride in that can be a model for others?
2. Is there anything that you hope to see your city improve on?
3. Is your city informed on or currently working on Green corridors? Are you thinking about green corridors?
4. Does your city have an environmental commission?
5. What type of communication do you have within your city regarding natural resources? What about including info in a city newspaper on what other cities are doing with regards to natural resources?
6. What types of resource management are you doing, in regards to; Invasive species Green corridors Nuisance wildlife (i.e. deer)
7. Do you have well developed ordinances pertaining to:
Wetlands Shorelands Stormwater (i.e. Environmental Utility fee) Urban trees Green Corridors
8. Does you city have any nature programming?
9. How often do you work with Maplewood and other cities in planning? Have there been
any successful or unsuccessful projects?
10. Would you be interested in working more with surrounding cities? Would a ‘guide’ of common ordinances, policies, and sustainability practices be helpful?
21
Appendix C: Comprehensive Plan Review Chart The sustainability topics were developed from Sustainable Landscapes: Contradiction, Fiction or Utopia? (Antrop, 2005). Presence indicates if the topic was discussed in the comprehensive plan (Y= Yes, N= No, NA=Not Applicable). Understood identified whether we believed the subject was understood to be a factor of sustainability in the written text.
Sustainability Topic Present (Y/N) Understood (Y/N)
Map. Oak St.P NP WB NSP Map Oak St.P NP WB NSP SOCIAL CAPITAL
COMMUNITY Cultural Preservation N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N
Sense of Place Y Y N Y Y N Y N N N N N Cultural Diversity Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N N N Beauty and Play Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N
Security Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N N Civic Society N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N Social Equity N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N
FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS Access to Knowledge Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N
Health Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Shelter for All Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
Subsistence Rights Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y N N ECONOMIC CAPITAL
LOCAL ECONOMIES Rural-Urban Linkages N N N N Y N N N N N Y N
Local Assets Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N GREEN BUSINESS Community Benefit N N Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N
Long-Term Profitability N N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N Product as Service N N N N N N N N N N N N
Waste as a Resource N N N Y N N N N N Y N N Resource Efficiency Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N
Sustainable Materials Cycles N Y N N Y N N Y N N Y N Renewable Energy Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Green Procurement N N N Y Y N N N N Y Y N
NATURAL CAPITAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Watershed Services Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Soil Services N Y N Y N Y N N N N N N
Climate Services Y Y N N N N Y Y N N N N Biodiversity Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y N N N
ECOLOGICAL LAND-USE Sustainable Forestry N N Y N N N N N Y N N N
Human-Scale Neighborhoods N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Green Building Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Transit Access Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
Ecological Infrastructure Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Urban Growth Boundaries NA N NA NA N N NA N NA NA N N
Core Reserves Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Wildlife Corridors Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N
Buffer Zones N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N
22
Appendix D: Ordinances for Six Cities
Stormwater
Maplewood
Sec. 44-1245. Stormwater management. (a) General Standards. General standards for stormwater management shall be as follows:
(1) When possible, designers and contactors must use natural drainageways, wetlands and vegetated soil surfaces to convey, store, filter and hold stormwater runoff before it discharges to public waters.
(2) Development must be planned and conducted to minimize disturbed areas, runoff velocities and erosion. (3) Developments shall maximize the use of surface drainage and vegetation to control stormwater runoff.
Where surface drainage and vegetation are not adequate to handle stormwater runoff, the city will allow the use of buried pipes and manmade materials and facilities.
(b) Specific standards. Specific standards for stormwater are as follows: (1) Newly constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of
suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. (2) All Development within shoreland areas shall be consistent with the city drainage plan. (Code 1982, § 36-569)
St. Paul
Sec. 63.319. Stormwater runoff.
Stormwater drainage from off-street parking facilities into public sewers shall be controlled so that peak stormwater
discharge rates from the site for all storms up to and including the critical 100-year frequency will not exceed:
Q = 1.64 x A
Q = the maximum acceptable discharge rate in cubic feet per second and
A = the site area in acres.
Parking facilities shall be designed so that discharge of all stormwater runoff and surface water shall be in a fashion
so as to preclude drainage of water onto adjacent property or toward buildings.
Woodbury
Sec. 27-16. Stormwater and urban runoff control.
(a) Illegal disposal/dumping.
(1) No person shall throw, deposit, place, leave, maintain, or keep any substance upon any street, alley, sidewalk,
storm drain, inlet, catch basin conduit or drainage structure, business place, or upon any public or private plot of
land, so that the same might be or become a pollutant, except in containers, recycling bags, or other lawfully
established waste disposal facility.
23
(2) No person shall intentionally dispose of grass, leaves, dirt, or landscape material into a water resource, buffer,
street, road, alley, catch basin, culvert, curb, gutter, inlet, ditch, natural watercourse, flood control channel, canal,
storm drain or any fabricated natural conveyance.
Oakdale
Sec. 23-42. Surface Water Management Fees. The utility factors for various land uses are as follows:
Classification Land Use Utility Factor 1 Single Family 1 2 Rental Units, Industrial, Townhouse* 2.12 3 Commercial/Office/Parking/Clinics 2.60 4 Open Space/Golf Course 0.46 5 Institutions (Churches, Schools) 2.35 6 Undeveloped (Rural Vacant) * 7 Twinhomes* 1.81
*Twinhouse UF based on CN= 88 average acreage = 0.10 acre. *Twinhomes UF based on CN=85 average acreage = 0.125 acre
The Surface Water Management Fee shall be determined by first determining the percentage of total runoff in the
city which is attributed to Single Family Residential Property. The fee per acre for Single Family Residential is
computed by computing the product of the runoff percentage and the Quarterly Surface Water Management
Revenue (less the agricultural revenue), divided by the estimated total equivalent Single Family units in the city. The
per acre fee for all other individual parcels shall be the product of the SFR x the UF x Acreage. Single Family
Residential parcels shall be assessed on a per household basis.
North St. Paul
§ 56.04 Surface Water Management Utility
(A) Surface water management shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to M.S. §444.075, as it may be
amended from time to time.
(`89 Code, § 15.010)
(B) Surface water management fees. The City Council shall have the authority to prescribe by ordinance the
rates to be charged to all properties within the city who contribute surface water to the storm sewer system and to
exempt property from such fees and to prescribe the date of billing and payment, a discount for payment with a
prescribed period and/or penalty for failure to pay within such period and such further rules and regulations relative
to the use and operation of such storm sewer system as it may deem necessary from time to time.
('89 Code, § 15.020)
24
(C) Surface Water Management Fund. A separate fund shall be maintained for surface water management fees and expenditures.
('89 Code, § 15.030) (Ord. 657, passed 12-20-2005)
Newport
Section 1371.06 Stormwater Management Plan Approval Procedures
Subd.2. Stormwater management plan. At a minimum, the stormwater management plan shall contain
the following information:
a) Existing site map. A map of existing site conditions showing the site and immediately adjacent areas,
including:
1) The name and address of the applicant, the section, township and range, north direction arrow, date and
scale of drawing and number of sheets;
2) Location of the tract by an insert map at a scale sufficient to clearly identify the location of the property
and giving such information as the names and numbers of adjoining roads, utilities, subdivisions, towns
and districts or other landmarks;
3) Existing topography with a contour interval appropriate to the topography of the land but in no case
having a contour interval greater than 2 feet;
4) A delineation of all streams, rivers, public waters and wetlands located on and immediately adjacent to
the site, including depth of water, a description of all vegetation which may be found in the water, a
statement of general water quality and any classification given to the water body or wetland by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Washington
County Soil and Water Conservation District and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineers;
5) Location and dimensions of existing stormwater drainage systems and natural drainage patterns on and
immediately adjacent to the site delineating in which direction and at what rate stormwater is conveyed
from the site, identifying the receiving stream, river, public water, or wetland, and setting forth those
areas of the unaltered site where stormwater collects;
6) A description of the soils of the site, including a map indicating soil types of areas to be disturbed as well
as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed
and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the
developer to render the soils suitable including special rotations locating where erosion soils exist on the
site;
7) Vegetative cover and clearly delineating any vegetation proposed for removal; and
8) 100-year floodplain, flood fringes and floodways.
25
Urban Trees
Maplewood
Sec. 38-34. Removal of infected trees or wood.
Whenever the city manager finds with reasonable certainty that the infestation, as defined in section 38-33,
exists in any tree or wood on any public or privet place in the city, he shall notify the property owner and the person
in possession, if different from the owner, on which such tree or wood stands, by certified mail or personal service,
that the nuisance must be abated within a specified time, not less than five days from the date of mailing such notice
or from the date of service. If the owner or occupant shall fail to remove the infected tree or wood from his property
within the time specifies in the notice, the city manager may order the work done either by the city’s emplouees or
by contract, and the cost of the work shall be billed against the owner or occupant.
(Code 1982, § 33-40) St. Paul ARTICLE II. 67.200. TP Tree Preservation Overlay District
Sec. 67.203. Tree preservation plan. (a) When preservation plan required generally. Any application for a
building permit that requires the removal of one (1) or more trees of twelve (12) inches DBH or larger, grading
permit, fill permit, lot split, plat approval or any development requiring site plan review shall include a tree
preservation plan, drawn to scale, for that area within the limits of disturbance. The tree preservation plan shall be
certified by a state-registered land surveyor, landscape architect or forester. The plan shall be submitted to the
planning administrator for review and approval.
Woodbury Sec. 27-29. Tree protection standards for developing properties.
(a) Tree preservation plan. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the city, and
implemented in accordance therewith in connection with any of the following:
(1) New development in any zoning district.
(2) New building construction in any zoning district.
(3) Expansion of any existing commercial, industrial or institutional building or impervious surface by ten percent
or greater, where an approved tree preservation plan is not on file with the city.
(4) Any project for which a city land disturbance permit is required.
(5) Removal of any healthy Specimen Tree on any parcel.
(6) Removal of more than 30 percent of the diameter inches of the significant trees on any parcel.
26
Oakdale Sec. 22-6. Significant Tree Replacement. Where replacement of a significant tree is required, the developer or builder shall be responsible for furnishing and installing the number and size of tree(s) identified in Category A, Category B, or Category C of the following schedule:
Tree Replacement Schedule Size of Tree Damaged or Destroyed Number of Replacement Trees
Category A Category B Category C 1 Coniferous- 12’ to 24’ high 1 2 4 2 Coniferous- 24’ or higher 2 4 8 3 Hardwood deciduous 8” – 20” diameter 1 2 4 4 Hardwood deciduous greater than 20” diameter 2 4 8 5 Softwood deciduous 12-24” diameter 1 2 4 6 Softwood deciduous greater than 24” diameter 2 4 8 Size of Replacement Trees Deciduous Trees Not less than
3” in diameter
Not less than 2.5” in
diameter
Not less than 2” in
diameter Coniferous Trees Not less than
10’ in height Not less than 8’ in height
Not less than 6’ in height
Type of Replacement Trees Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include those species and diversity as determined by City Council resolution.
Source of Replacement Trees Replacement trees shall consist of "certified nursery stock" or state inspected transplant stock as defined by Minnesota Statutes 18.46.
North St. Paul
§ 93.03 Type of Tree.
The kinds of trees which shall be planted on boulevards are as listed on file in the Department of Community Services. No other types or kinds of trees shall be planted on any boulevard in the city except by permission of the Council.
(`89 Code, § 152.030) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 93.04 Size and Location.
At the time of planting, no tree shall be smaller in size than one and one-half inches in diameter measured at a point six inches above the ground. Each tree shall be so located on residential streets as to be seven feet onto the boulevard when measured at right angles from the property line. All trees shall be so planted as to be at least 30 feet apart when measured along the street.
(`89 Code, § 152.040)
27
Newport Section 810 - Tree Diseases
810.04 Nuisance Declared{tc \l2 "810.04 Nuisance Declared}. The following shall be declared to be public
nuisances whenever they may be found within the City:
A. Any living or standing elm tree or part thereof infected to any degree with the Dutch Elm Disease fungus,
Ceratocystis Ulmi (Buisman) Moreau, or which harbors any of the elm bark beetles, Scolytus multistrialus
(eich.) or Hylurgopinus rufipes (March).
B. Any elm tree or part thereof, including logs, branches, stumps, firewood, or other elm material from which
the bark has not been removed and burned or sprayed with an effective elm bark beetle insecticide.
C. Any living or standing oak tree or part thereof infected to any degree with the oak wilt disease fungus
ceraloiystis fogacearum.
D. Any dead oak trees or part thereof which in the opinion of the Forester constitutes a hazard, including but
not limited to logs, branches, stumps, firewood, or other oak material, which has not been stripped of its
bark and burned or sprayed with an effective fungicide.
E. Any other shade trees with an epidemic disease.
Green Corridors
St. Paul
Division 3. 68.230. RC3 River Corridor Urban Open Overlay District
Sec. 68.231. Intent.
It is intended that lands and waters within this district shall be managed to conserve and protect the existing and
potential recreational, scenic, natural and historic resources. Open space provided in the open river corridor is for
public use and the protection of unique natural and scenic resources. The existing transportation role of the river in
this district will be protected.
(C.F. No. 03-241, § 2, 3-26-03)
28
Appendix E: Interview Summary
Interview Findings, 22 October 2008. Four main findings
o Green Corridors o Nature Programming o Existing Collaboration o Environmental Commission
• Green Corridors:
Yes – Woodbury, St. Paul, Oakdale (limited resources dedicated) Some – North St. Paul No – Newport
• Environmental Commission:
Yes – North St. Paul, Woodbury, Oakdale No – Newport, St. Paul
• Future Maplewood Collaboration?
Yes – Newport, North St. Paul, Oakdale (personal level) Some – Woodbury, St. Paul No – Oakdale (organizational)
• Existing Collaboration?
Yes – North St. Paul, Oakdale, Newport, No – Woodbury, St. Paul
• Nature Programming?
Yes – Oakdale, Maplewood, St. Paul Partially– North St. Paul (Signs and designated areas), Newport (Bailey School Forest), Woodbury (partnered)
• Model for others
Stormwater – Woodbury, Newport National Great River Park Framework – St. Paul Fast Implementation – Oakdale Green Power Program – North St. Paul Trash Management – North St. Paul
29
Appendix F: List of City Contacts Maplewood:
Shann Finwall, Maplewood Environmental Planner 651-249-2304, [email protected] Virginia Gaynor, Maplewood Open Space Naturalist 651-249-2416, [email protected]
Newport:
John Neska, Assistant Public Works Superintendant 651-459-2475, [email protected]
North St. Paul: Keith Stachowski, Assistant Superintendent Public Works, 651-747-2447 [email protected]
Oakdale:
Bob Streetar, Oakdale Community Development Director 651-730-2806, [email protected]
Saint Paul: Anne Hunt, Deputy Policy Director/Environment, Mayors Office (651)266-8520, [email protected] Cy Kosel, Natural Resources Manager (651) 632-2412, [email protected] Scott Kruse, Forestry Supervisor (651) 632-2433, [email protected] Karl Mueller, Dutch Elm Disease Manager, Forestry Division (651) 632-2429, [email protected] Adam Robbins, Environmental Coordinator (651) 632-2457, [email protected] Kurt Schultz, Strategic Services, PED 651-266-6590, [email protected] Penelope Simison, Senior Planner, Planning and Economic Development (PED) 651-266-6554, [email protected] Merrit Clapp-Smith, Sustainability Project Manager, PED (651) 266-6547, [email protected]
30
Woodbury:
Sharon Doucette, Woodbury Environmental Resources Coordinator 651-714-3538, [email protected]
Jason McCarville, Woodbury Arborist 651-714-3720, [email protected]
Doug Peterson, Parks Specialist 651-714-3720, [email protected]
31
Appendix G: Ordinances Online Sources Locations Maplewood
http://ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.asp?NID=85
St. Paul
http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=10061&sid=23
Woodbury
http://ci.woodbury.mn.us/govt/citycode.html
Oakdale http://ci.oakdale.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={67BCC46E-90A8-4A05-A2C6-673E3B896618}
North St. Paul
http://www.amlegal.com/north_saint_paul
Newport
http://www.newport.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B28CD173-CF19-4ABC-900C-53200A58CCDD}
