Citizen's Environmental Quality Committee

dir CITY OF MINNE May 1, 2020 Citizens Environmental Quality Committee Winona, Minnesota 55987 Dear Committee Members: The next meeting of the Citizens Environmental Quality Committee meeting will be held virtually on Thursday, May 7th, 2020 at 4: 30 p. m. We will be using Zoom to video conference, with a call in option as well. To access Zoom: Join Zoom Meeting: https:// us02web. zoom. us/ j/ 85610993614 Optional Call in: + 1 312 626 6799 US ( Chicago) Meeting ID ( Web and call in): 856 1099 3614 1. Call to Order 2. Review and approval of January 2020 meeting notes 3. HF 1255 Sign On Letter ( 10 minutes) 4. Community Garden Discussion ( 15 minutes) 5. Grants Update ( 15 minutes) 6. Earth and Arbor Day Proclamation ( 2 minutes) 7. Bluff Habitat Restoration Applications ( 15 minutes) 8. Other Business ( 5 minutes) 9. Adjournment Sincerely, John Howard Natural Resources Sustainability Coordinator CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES DATE: January 2, 2020 TIME: Scheduled for 4: 30 pm at the City Hall Misato Room PRESENT: Dan Hall, Julie Fassbender, Lynette Power GUESTS: STAFF: John Howard 1. Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 4: 36 pm by Chair Hall. 2. Review and Approval of December Meeting Minutes: Lynette moved for approval, Julie seconded. All in favor. 3. Goal Discussion: Energy: Julie suggests adding piece about CEQC advocating or advising on City energy policy. Agreement amongst CEQC. Julie asked about Partners in Energy( PIE). John described that this is an Xcel Energy program, with formal work concluding about nine months ago. Dan added that much of the PiE work was about business programs. Julie suggested using the word " monitoring" rather than " implement". Julie asked if the workshops listed in the goal are being done, and who is doing them? John stated that this was not assigned to a particular group or staff member, and the City has not been very active with workshops since the goal was developed. Under the measurable section, City should add piece on City policy. Lynette shared about a letter she received this summer that advertised a solar garden or farm. She has not seen these large installations in the area, but has seen them elsewhere in her travels. Lynette wondered about advising on solar, and if this is a City function. John shared that the city did include information about community solar in presentations, and he gets calls from the public. John suggested CERTs has good information to educate about community solar and aspects to consider with subscribing to a garden. Lynette recalled good attendance at a local event about community solar. Julie wondered about the time bound nature of the goal. Lynette suggested the climate crisis requires full effort, and thus expedience. Julie likes the term of expedience. Julie asked for clarification about the City' s community solar subscription. John said the City is a subscriber to community solar for about 50%of the City government' s energy usage. John described the City rationale for not going with 100% community solar. Lynette likes the idea of having locally controlled solar as a backup energy for critical infrastructure. CEQC suggests exploring opportunities for a solar microgrid as part of the goal. 4. Community Garden Locations Discussion: John said that he included an abundance of options to be thorough, even though some may be dismissed out of hand. John suggests starting with one location that seems favorable and using it as the benchmark to compare to others. Julie likes the Sobieski Park location, and began the discussion. The park has been getting upgrades and the nearby neighborhood has received home improvement funds, so there is renewed energy in the neighborhood. Lynette confirmed that the new park pavilion is very nice. Dan enquired where the plots would go. Julie also likes Belmont- Whitten for gardens. Dan likes the area near the aquatic center in terms of being a central location, but available areas are sparse. John described that the grassy area by the Central Garage was deemed too traffic congested by the Central Garage Superintendent. Julie likes the idea of putting gardens in areas where yards are small, and homeowners do not have the ability to garden on their own property. Lynette brought up bridge area and comments from December about them not being suitable. John added that much of the bridge park area is walkways or stormwater infrastructure. Lynette feels it is important to locate gardens away from drinking areas because bar patrons can be destructive towards property. John believes a fence will be a necessary aspect for any garden to protect it from vandals. Lynette brought attention back to Sobieski Park, and noted the high tree coverage. Julie thought many of these trees would be removed due to emerald ash borer. Lynette shared her experience with shade detracting from her garden' s productivity. Julie shifted the discussion toward Lions Park. John gave some updates on this site that were not visible in the satellite image: An outdoor rink takes the place south of the gravel parking area, and a stormwater pond utilizes much of the green space previously north of the ice arena paved parking lot. Dan asked about the northeast section of the park that looked unused? John believes these areas are now being used by sewer utility infrastructure. Julie again voiced her thoughts on the merits of Sobieski Park. Julie asked about Tillman Park? John did not have it on the initial list, but brought it up on the projector. Dan wondered where Tillman Park is located. Julie explained it is near St. Mary' s University, somewhat behind Mango' s restaurant by the creek. This site likely would have water access from the park pavilion. Julie believes Tillman would also be a good location. Lynette stated this would be out of the vandalism circuit. This park abuts the Gilmore Creek levee, but does not seem to flood. Lynette would like to see a more centrally located garden, such as at Lake Park. Julie believes Lake Park could be filled to raise the gardens out of the water, but would add cost to the overall project. John recalled Chad' s concerns about West Lake being too wet, and stated that many of the areas west of Dacota St. were saturated this past summer. The CEQC looked at the area east of the Dacota St. entry. Seemed like some of this area would be dry enough, and would not interfere with park use. John thought there might be an old water fountain that could provide water. Dan asked if the Sobieski, Tillman and the West Lake site should be the CEOC' s recommendation? CEQC concurred. John suggested it might be good to consider some East Lake Park locations, as these may avoid the wetness found in the West Lake areas. These areas include open space near the Willows disc golf course. Julie liked the potties also be an added benefit. eastern open areas of the Willows area. The presence of porta- may One additional site is by Hamilton St. and Sarnia intersection in the area vacated by the old jungle gyms and playgrounds. The benefits of this site are its central proximity, high visibility, complementary use potential, no standing water and geese deterrence. Parking is also generally available. The CEQC decided to add this to their recommendation list. The CEQC reviewed the pros and cons of the three other sites on the recommendation list: Sobieski is good for water accessibility, near small lot neighborhood, is an area getting renewed investment, near new park building, and has the ability to comingle activities. West Lake site: pros: walkable, central location, parking, and likely water access. Cons: potentially soggy. Tillman: Pros: few trees, not saturated, water access. Cons: accessibility, but would serve neighborhood. 5. Other Business: Dan asked about a webinar opportunity that Lynette shared about air monitoring at the December meeting, and whether it was still available. Lynette said it already occurred, but may be on website. She will share it with Dan. Meeting adjourned at 5: 37 PM by acclamation. Notes prepared by John Howard.  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 3. HF 1255 Sign on Letter PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: May 7, 2020 The Pollinator Friendly Alliance requested earlier this spring that the City consider signing onto a letter of support fora bill ( HF1255) in the Minnesota legislature that would allow municipalities to prohibit the use of certain pesticides. The current version of the bill as well as their model letter of support is included for your review. HF 1255 Sign On Letter Dear Governor Walz, Commissioner Petersen, Representatives Hortman and Winkler, and Senators Gazelga and Kent, On behalf of the undersigned city, county, and local government leadership, we urge you to support House File 1255 this session. This bill is a timely and pragmatic restoration of local control that could enable the creation of safe havens for managed and native pollinators across Minnesota. Many of us represent Minnesota' s forty-four-and- counting Pollinator Friendly Municipalities, communities that have passed resolutions to take local action on pollinator protection. We have collaborated with our residents to restore habitat, improve land management practices, and reduce the use of pesticides that are lethal to pollinators. But despite these efforts, pollinator populations across the state continue to plummet. Many of Minnesota' s native species of bees and butterflies are facing extinction. Minnesota beekeepers have been forced out of business after years of colonies collapsing. And farmers who rely on pollination services for their crops are raising concerns about the future of the food supply. As local policymakers, we are concerned about pollinator declines and know that other states look to Minnesota to lead in the fight to protect these species, especially threatened or endangered species like Minnesota' s state bee, the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee. HF 1255 creates a narrow and defined exception to the state pesticide preemption clause. FIFRA ( the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) explicitly states that states can grant regulatory power over pesticides to municipalities. But in states like Minnesota that have passed preemption laws, local governments must bend over backwards to pass local legislation that fits our community' s needs. These restrictions keep us from doing our job as policymakers. As local officials, we are highly attuned to the needs of our constituents and adept at calibrating our protections accordingly. Local governments are also nimbler than their state or federal counterparts and can quickly respond to emerging crises- like pollinator declines- faster than our state counterparts. Opponents to this provision undermine the policymaking expertise of local governments, claiming that this provision will result in an unscientific, poorly- designed patchwork of policies. Yet as local policymakers we know that our policymaking processes- like the State' s- involve a thorough review of the scientific evidence available. This evidence can be regional, state- wide or national. We are not cut off from these resources on a local level. This is an all- hands- on- deck moment for pollinators, and HF 1255 represents a step in the right direction. As local officials, we are calling on the Governor and Minnesota legislators to empower us to work with our communities and help pollinators across our state.  HF1255 FIRST ENGROSSMENT REVISOR JRM H1255- 1 This Document can be made available in alternative formats upon request State of Minnesota HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY- FIRST SESSION H. F. No. 1255 02/ 14/ 2019 Authored by Wagenius, Hansen, Acomb, Fischer, Becker- Finn and others The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Policy 02/ 13/ 2020 Adoption of Report: Amended and re- referred to the Agriculture and Food Finance and Policy Division 1. 1 A bill for an act 1. 2 relating to environment policy; authorizing cities to adopt certain pesticide control 1. 3 ordinances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 18B. 09. 1. 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1 s Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 18B. 09, is amended to read: 1. 6 1 8B. 09 PESTICIDE APPLICATION IN CITIES. 1. 7 Subdivision 1. Applicability. This section applies only to statutory and home rule charter 1. 8 cities that enact ordinances as provided in this section. 1. 9 Subd. 2. Authority. Statutory and home rule charter cities may enact an ordinance, 1. 10 which may include penalty and enforcement provisions, containing one or both of the 111 following: 1. 12 1) the pesticide application warning information contained in subdivision 3, including 1. 13 -- and 1. 14 2) the pesticide prohibition contained in subdivision 4. 1. 15 Statutory and home rule charter cities may not enact an ordinance the more 1. 16 restrictive :- .- ..: . . . - - . :- than is-contained that which is provided 1. 12 in lien subdivisions 3 and 4. 1. 18 Subd. 3. Warning signs for pesticide application.( a) All commercial or noncommercial 1. 19 applicators who apply pesticides to turf areas must post or affix warning signs on the property 1. 20 where the pesticides are applied. Section 1. 1  HF1255 FIRST ENGROSSMENT REVISOR JRM H1255- 1 b) Warning signs must project at least 18 inches above the top of the grass line. The warning signs must be of a material that is rain-resistant for at least a 48- hour period and 22: 2. 2 2. 3 must remain in place up to 48 hours from the time of initial application. 2. 4 c) The following information must be printed on the warning sign in contrasting colors 2. 5 and capitalized letters measuring at least one- half inch, or in another format approved by 2. 6 the commissioner. The sign must provide the following information: 2. 7 1) the name of the business organization, entity, or person applying the pesticide; and 2. 8 2) the following language: " This area chemically treated. Keep children and pets off 2. 9 until...( date of safe entry)..." or a universally accepted symbol and text approved by the 2. 10 commissioner that is recognized as having the same meaning or intent as specified in this 2. 11 paragraph. The warning sign may include the name of the pesticide used. 212 d) The warning sign must be posted on a lawn or yard between two feet and five feet 2 13 from the sidewalk or street. For parks, golf courses, athletic fields, playgrounds, or other 2. 14 similar recreational property, the warning signs must be posted immediately adjacent to 2. 15 areas within the property where pesticides have been applied and at or near the entrances 2. 16 to the property. 2. 17 Subd. 4. Application of certain pesticides prohibited.( a) A person may not apply or 2. 18 use a pollinator- lethal pesticide within the geographic boundaries of a city that has enacted 2. 19 an ordinance under subdivision 2 prohibiting such use. 2. 20 b) For purposes of this subdivision," pollinator- lethal pesticide" means a pesticide that 2. 21 has a pollinator protection box on the label or labeling, or a pollinator, bee, or honey bee 2. 22 precautionary statement in the environmental hazards section of the label or labeling. 2. 23 c) The commissioner must maintain a list of pollinator- lethal pesticides on the 2 24 department' s website. Section 1. 2  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 4. Community Garden Locations Discussion Summary PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: May 7, 2020 At the January CEQC meeting, the committee recommended four areas for new community gardens. Attached is a summary recommendation prepared by staff that would be shared with the Parks and Recreation department. Please review this document, and bring any suggestions or edits to our meeting. The East Rec. Community Garden is up and running with some modifications because of CoViD- 19, such as no communal tool sharing and the typical 6 foot physical distancing.  PUBLIC WORKS 207 LAFAYETTE STREET PO BOX 378 CITY OF WINONA, MN 55987- 0378 W IV 1 1, NA 507- 457- 8269 MINNESOTA Community Garden Location Recommendations In late 2019 and early 2020, the City of Winona Citizens Environmental Quality Committee ( CEQC) reviewed the suitability of potential community garden sites on public property. This initiative was in response to the likely reduction in garden space at the East Recreation Center and the high level of interest in the gardens. When reviewing the sites, the CEQC considered numerous factors including, but not limited to, the following: parking, water access, proximity to neighborhoods, likelihood of vandalism, sunlight, drainage, visibility, the potential for comingling uses, and any use conflicts. Four sites emerged as consensus favorites, and are suggested as future community garden locations. The sites are not mutually exclusive, and the CEQC recommends multiple locations be utilized for gardens. The four sites, in alphabetical order, are East Lake Park, Sobieski Park, Tillman Park and West Lake Park. East Lake Park: w_ -•.. — Pros: Sart? a St Central location with good Q.. visibility 95. 36 Excludes geese Typically drains Comingling of uses 166 Space for 50+ beds 14, 330sqtrigm Possible water access via field irrigation Ample parking on street and in 4 moo boat launch lot 87.95 Cons: Softballs may end up in garden Sobieski Park: 4 . M Pros: w - abasha Near existing garden a, r Smaller yards in neighborhood, so more likely 4 to meet need Water and electrical access 4 from building 1 q Community investment interest and in area City of 1JV nova. Sobieski Park Lodge U„.,/ Comingling of activities t , Sobieski Park 42 t Cons: Potentially shade from mature trees Smaller number of possible plots v w 4 N. c Q{ a i f { r Tillman Park: Kerry Dr Pros: f Sunny Ground not saturated Adequate parking Water access from park building Tillman Park Cons: Neighborhood centric Low visibility g s, Ma. data X52020 United States Terms Send feedback 50 ft West Lake Park: 15t St Lb Ii. si 8, rx 3 i i 4 044 r Pros: Cons: Central location Can be soggy Comingling of park uses Playground may be replaced, so use could No competing uses change Parking on street or Dacota St. entrance Near bike path Water access potentially from drinking fountain connection Porta- potty within one block  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 5. Grants Update PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: May 7, 2020 The City is working on a number of initiatives that are funded by grants. Staff prepared a summary that was shared with the City Council, and has been updated to reflect work already completed this spring.  PUBLIC WORKS drir207LAFAYETTESTREET PO BOX 378 CITY OF r"`' WINONA, MN 55987- 0378 wIN / JNA 507- 457- 8269 MINNESOTA Memo RE: Grant Updates The City has grant funding for a number of environmental initiatives that are ramping up this spring. This is a memo to keep you abreast of these projects and any changes that may be required due to CoVID- 19. 1. West Lake Winona Aquatic Invasive Species Management: The MNDNR awarded the City a grant in late February to conduct a lake inventory of invasive aquatic plant species and to treat up to 12 acres of the lake with herbicide for curly leaf pondweed. The City requested $ 2, 100 and received 1, 800. Staff is finalizing a request for quotes, and hopes to move quickly once quotes are received. I informed the Healthy Lake Winona group about the City' s plans, and a number of their members expressed reluctance to using chemical herbicides for only a single year. Their argument, which is valid, is a single year of treatment would not have long term effects, and would be adding chemicals to the lake. After consultation with DNR staff, the City staff brought back a recommendation to the City Council on April 20th to proceed with the work only if the City is willing to pursue continued curly leaf pondweed treatments in the near future. Herbicide, specifically an endothall formulation, will be used because the only alternative is weed harvesting, which is very unlikely to kill the reproductive buds. The DNR is also confident the use of herbicides has virtually no off target impacts if applied in the early growing season. 2. Intermittent Bluff Streambank Stabilization: The Conservation Corps agreed in February to undertake the stormwater outfall erosion stabilization tasks in a couple of our Wincrest and Skyline residential areas. Work will need to wait until physical distancing requirements are released per Conservation Corps policy. Thus I anticipate this will be a fall project. A land disturbance permit for the project is being considered at the next planning commission meeting. 3. Emerald Ash Borer Community Forest Response Tree Planting Grant: Work is proceeding on preparing for tree plantings largely funded by the DNR, but staff decided to reduce the planting load this year to 75 rather than 85 trees. All but a couple of the trees have already been planted. 4. Lawns to Legumes Pleasant Valley Pollinator Corridor: Healthy Lake Winona and a group of Pleasant Valley residents teamed up with support from the SWCD, County and City to win a grant for plantings ($ 30, 534). Much of this area is in the townships, but 250+ residential pollinator friendly  city residences are eligible for funding. CoVID- 19 will prevent in person trainings for the time being, but much of the physical work can still be accomplished by homeowners. More information on the project is at https:// www. pvpollinators. com/. 5. East Lake Winona Shoreland Restoration: The Conservation Corps completed much of the remaining invasive species removal work this past fall and winter, and may do some spot treatments later this year. The Healthy Lake Winona group assisted in tree and shrub sapling planting during the last weekend in April, and put nearly 580 saplings in the ground. Another 125 were placed by staff this past week. Once the stay at home order is lifted and physical distancing guidelines are relaxed, staff hopes to coordinate a wave and erosion barrier to aid in emergent aquatic vegetation planting. 6. Level II Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Early Detection and Removal grant: Winona County led a grant application this winter with the City and Houston County to receive funding for staffing and materials to remove high priority invasive plant species. We received notice of being awarded the full request ($ 50, 000) in late January. Like with the Lake Winona tree planting, I am hopeful this can continue with some modifications since much of the work can be done semi- autonomously. It is a two year grant, so year two work hopefully will be unaffected. 7. Green Corps Community Readiness Member Position: The City applied for a GreenCorps member for the Sept. 2020 to Aug. 2021 service year within the " Community Readiness" category. On April 29th, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency notified the City that they were awarding a member to the City. This member will play a large role in public outreach and education regarding a forthcoming sustainability master plan effort. The member will also share time with the County on a solid waste composting feasibility project and aid the Ridgeway School in environmental education. I am happy to elaborate further on any of these projects or answer questions you may have. Thank you, John Howard Natural Resources and Sustainability Coordinator Jhoward@ci. winona. mn. us 1507- 457- 8273  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 6. Earth and Arbor Day PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: May 7, 2020 24th The mayor proclaimed Friday April as Winona Earth and Arbor Day. The proclamation is included for your reference.  CITY OF w WINONA MINNESOTA City of Winona PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, all people have a right to a healthy, sustainable environment as well as economic growth and opportunity; and WHEREAS, trees provide many ecological and human benefits that are being diminished by changing temperatures and precipitation, more extreme weather events, and increasing pressure from pests, diseases, and invasive species; and WHEREAS, all of us, as caretakers of our planet, have an obligation to combat climate change and environmental degradation to preserve the Earth' s beauty as well as its resources; and WHEREAS, all of us can help build resilient communities and reduce the negative impacts of climate change by planting and caring for trees and by using wood products to store carbon into the future; and WHEREAS, the City of Winona participates in the GreenStep Cities program and Tree City USA program to better meet our environmental obligations; and WHEREAS, the City of Winona is committed to building on this success and dedicated to inspiring action through local education and outreach; NOW, THEREFORE I, Mayor Mark Peterson, hereby proclaim Friday, April 24, 2020, as Winona Earth and Arbor Day IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and cause,. h- Seal of the City 20th of Winona to be affixed this day of April, 2020 J ONA CO& / 1/,)). i/ a i o t THE CITY IF WINONA * Attes : SEAL 41/ 4 IPA , r'• ES City Clerk  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 7. Bluff Habitat Restoration Applications PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: May 7, 2020 The City is considering undertaking two projects in the bluffs in the near future to restore native habitat areas. One is a prairie oak savannah near the Garvin Heights overlook, while the other is the prairie habitat on the south side of the sugarloaf area. Staff would appreciate any thoughts you have on these projects before. The next step for these projects is to obtain a land disturbance permit. CITY OF WINONA MINNESOTA 1. Legal description of property upon which the proposed Land Disturbance Activity will be located. Portions of parcels 323206280 and 323292240 described respectively as Sect- 34 Twp- 107 Range- 007 LIMITS ABOUT 10 1/ 2 AC IN E1/ 2 NE1/ 4 N1/ 4 and Sect-34 Twp- 107 Range- 007 WINONA TWP ANNEX 5. 00 AC OLD # 19. 025. 0340 PART OF NE 1/ 4 NW 1/ 4 COMMENCING 724' WEST OF NE CORNER, S 100', E 250', S 265', WEST TO ROAD, NORTH ON ROAD TO NORTH LINE, EAST TO BEG 2. A current topographic map drawn to a scale of 100 feet to the inch, or less, and two foot contour intervals, showing the limits of any Bluff Impact and Ridgeline Transition Overlay District, and location of the planned land disturbance activity. In preparing this map, the applicant shall certify the method used in calculating overlay district limits. Should the City be requested to provide district limits, all such calculations shall be final. See attached map. 3. A clear and complete description of the proposed disturbance activity, including supporting professional opinions, structural plans, site revegetation, erosion control, stormwater management, project timing or other documentation that defines project scope, anticipated impacts, and mitigation strategies. If associated with any use listed under Section 43. 02. 32 C) 6), the applicant shall provide response as to how conditions, pertaining to the use, will be met. The project entails restoring the oak savannah to the west and north west of the Garvin Heights overlook by removing canopy cover to allow a more natural ecosystem is community to flourish. The 75%, whereas a historical bur current canopy cover, as measured by WSU biology students nearly oak savannah would have only 30- 35 % canopy cover. Thus the project would mean removing trees to reduce the canopy cover by 40-45 percentage points. All of this area is within the Bluffland Overlay District, and amounts to approximately 1. 05 acres. A qualified forester will remove standing trees, primarily trees less than 12- 16 inches in diameter, as measured at 4. 5 feet about the ground, and leave the large bur oaks untouched. Ground disturbance should be limited to a mini- bobcat tracks in order to drag out cut trees. Brush and branches would likely be wood chipped on site for nutrient recycling and ground stabilization. Understory seeding will be ongoing to prevent erosion and to reestablish the native savannah prairie community. Ideally work would occur outside the growing season. 4. If located within a High Potential Burial Ground and Archaeological Site, the application shall include a fully prepared Phase 1 Archaeological Survey, with comments and recommendations received during this document review by Tribal Councils, and State Archaeologist. The survey must be prepared by a qualified professional as defined by MS 138. 31, subd. 10, or who is listed on the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Archaeological contractors list, and in accordance with Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office protocol. For disturbances not relating to a plat, the scope of the survey shall include all land located within 150 feet of disturbance limits, or at the applicants property line, whichever is less. High Potential Burial Ground and Archaeological Site Area: An area possessing probable qualities of the existence of unrecorded or unplatted burial grounds and archaeological sites. As defined by the State Archaeologist Predictive location model, for Winona County, this definition shall apply to all lands located within 1000 feet from any Top of Bluff Code as defined per43.this02.ordinance; 34 D); Section 500 feet terraces of any public water stream defined or river, as pursuant to City above flood plains, lower terraces back to the Toes of Bluffs with plain views of rivers and streams; and isolated hilltops with clear views of the surrounding country. Not applicable, as no subsurface activity. 5. A hydrogeology study prepared by a qualified professional, a purpose of this study is to define sensitive surface and ground water features and to address strategies to be undertaken in mitigating proposed impacts from disturbances. At a minimum, the scope of this study must include all land located within 150 feet from the limits of the disturbance activity, or the applicants property line, whichever is less. Not applicable, as no subsurface activity.  Garvin Heights Oak Savannah Restoration i d` tsA 9 a '„ r ti3# F S 3 R f 4 2 g !'¢# v ; r k.• `* - f o k1aL +,' a• :: . t y , t ai '}+ t4, -' , t. tom `- 1.t $ yw k" f= f t ¢¢ {' f t xl i '+' d . 1:• x,,," r f '? t =,. 440:,',{ t?°, s'', p i ,'. h<: * 4` f4 . 4.,;, 74., w. i, `. a Ta Afi-,- X. Olt' , t, t. \ } t t>\, 4\ a w t b ads ":,- . 6"' tt tr t it, k,, tty t} : 14 kt. \ ktt { ,`.+.. t y.'. ' K`. Si ttii} tt' i f'.. 1. 1 0k AVi' t s A1. t' t ss \ t`+ i:, Yts 1, t t i tot 11, \+\ p j j l;, Fr b 4 "` , St fin, i ca qtj A1, , w t t VI kll ' t1 , r t1 vuJ kr7r/ 1 y„ iA' l 441,... 4.° t•. 4r •: t t . g' + 1erlt} r' jf, r41', s.-•,' tf, ` ttr yy J stf' . t 0 rfl f' /'r f7Pt tr ° , '„;',. Ff' it , I iota d ' r 7.: t'', r 0 t r'. 0, . e•' t L A t ' fi f 11 M{ y{ T' ft' fA bI;; r tr ft, ,,,,,,,,, 1t k@} 4,.. jf t, f , t},+,`, ; l kf a, qr r ci 1,#. , i,„ ,, t t ,,,,,,,,„„,„ pr, I ',,, p#°, 1., i1r, 4 t , i4, geV - tilrIt' P{ 14''' as' i '. { t} i 1tti i ti t 1 sy t r/ h w leli I• ilV' 3 V t it'P, If,. F{[[{; 5{ P{ 71,,,::...:,, t.' titf } a, A t ` , ta1 4+ \ m tt` { N t , Lt 4‘,„. 0 50 100 200 Feet Q Savannah Restoration Area Bluff Overlay District This map was compiled from a variety of sources', 2008 Lidar data. This information is provided with the understanding that conclusions drawn from such information are solely Z Contours the responsibility of the user. The GIS data is not a legal representation of any of the features depicted, the legal this is hereby n Parcel Boundary antl any assumptions of status of map disclaimed. CITY OF WINONA MINNESOTA 1. Legal description of property upon which the proposed Land Disturbance Activity will be located. Portions of parcel 323206500, which is described as Sect-35 Twp- 107 Range- 007 LIMITS PAR IN SW 1/ 4 NE 1/ 4 & SE 1/ 4 NW 1/ 4 EX: FRONTING ON LAKE BLVD 200' DEEP. 2. A current topographic map drawn to a scale of 100 feet to the inch, or less, and two foot contour intervals, showing the limits of any Bluff Impact and Ridgeline Transition Overlay District, and location of the planned land disturbance activity. In preparing this map, the applicant shall certify the method used in calculating overlay district limits. Should the City be requested to provide district limits, all such calculations shall be final. Please see attached map. 3. A clear and complete description of the proposed disturbance activity, including supporting professional opinions, structural plans, site revegetation, erosion control, stormwater management, project timing or other documentation that defines project scope, anticipated impacts, and mitigation strategies. If associated with any use listed under Section 43. 02. 32 C) 6), the applicant shall provide response as to how conditions, pertaining to the use, will be met. There are two work aspects being proposed that would constitute land disturbance as defined in Chap. 43. The first is a prescribed prairie burn to encourage growth of native prairie plant species and to push back undesirable or invasive plant species. The total area to be burned would be 0. 7- 0. 8 acres, and would be conducted by experienced professionals and in compliance with Winona Fire Department requests. This would ideally be performed in the spring or fall. The second work aspect is removing non- native vegetation, namely common buckthorn ( Rhamnus cathartica) and honeysuckle bushes ( Lonicera spp.). Some native species that are not bluff prairie species and are problematic to restoration, such as poplars, may be removed. Plants will primarily be killed by treating the cut stump with herbicide. The herbicide applicator may utilize a foliar spray if work is done after leaf out or to kill seedlings. These are standard invasive control methods with good track records. 4. If located within a High Potential Burial Ground and Archaeological Site, the application shall include a fully prepared Phase 1 Archaeological Survey, with comments and recommendations received during this document review by Tribal Councils, and State Archaeologist. The survey must be prepared by a qualified professional as defined by MS 138. 31, subd. 10, or who is listed on the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Archaeological contractors list, and in accordance with Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office protocol. For disturbances not relating to a plat, the scope of the survey shall include all land located within 150 feet of disturbance limits, or at the applicants property line, whichever is less. High Potential Burial Ground and Archaeological Site Area: An area possessing probable qualities of the existence of unrecorded or unplatted burial grounds and archaeological sites. As defined by the State Archaeologist Predictive location model, for Winona County, this definition shall apply to all lands located within 1000 feet from any Top of Bluff as defined per this ordinance; 500 feet of any public water stream or river, as defined pursuant to City Code Section 43. 02. 34 D); terraces above flood plains, lower terraces back to the Toes of Bluffs with plain views of rivers and streams; and isolated hilltops with clear views of the surrounding country. Not applicable, as no subsurface activity. 5. A hydrogeology study prepared by a qualified professional, a purpose of this study is to define sensitive surface and ground water features and to address strategies to be undertaken in mitigating proposed impacts from disturbances. At a minimum, the scope of this study must include all land located within 150 feet from the limits of the disturbance activity, or the applicants property line, whichever is less. Not applicable, as no subsurface activity.  Sugar Loaf Prairie Restoration t qtr ake 449/ y„,, t Iii'' 4111, y 4. k- 4 ` 1 r T ? r c,: s tom, r Glen C 0 N ,,,,._ 4... ' Ili ".,..-',..' m Valle y_ , w y Burns West iikl .. x. 0 100 200 400 Invasive Species Removal Area Feet Potential Prairie Burn Area This map was compiled from a of 2008 Lidar data. information variety sources, This is provided with the understanding that conclusions drawn from such information are solely Bluff Overlay District the responsibility of the user. The GIS data is legal not a representation of any of the features depicted, and any assumptions of the legal status of the map is hereby Z Contours disclaimed. I- 1 Parcel Boundary