Citizen's Environmental Quality Committee

CITY OF WINONA MINNESOTA July 31, 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, August 6th, 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 June 2020 meeting minutes 3. Environmental Considerations with Annexation Proposals ( 20 minutes) 4. Community Garden Discussion Update ( 5 minutes) 5. Renewable Energy Procurement Proposal ( 5 minutes) 6. Sustainability Master Plan ( 5 minutes) 7. Lake Winona Water Quality Improvement Plan ( 15 minutes) 8. Other Business ( 5 minutes) 9. Adjournment Sincerely, John Howard Natural Resources Sustainability Coordinator  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES DATE: Thursday June 4, 2020 TIME: Scheduled for 4: 30 pm ( Virtual Zoom Meeting) PRESENT: Dan Hall, Julie Fassbender, David Ruff GUESTS: STAFF: John Howard 1. Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 4: 32 pm by Chair Hall. 2. Review and Approval of May Meeting Minutes: Motion by Julie to approve the May meeting minutes, Dan seconded. Unanimously approved. 3. Volunteer Science and Engagement: John stated that the list of volunteer activities is for CEQC members or members of the public. The opportunities are ways for the community to help out, and still be following the pandemic safety guidelines. Julie liked the list. David asked about whether the Cover it Up activity needed volunteers. John indicated they are ok with volunteers but would be happy to have more. David is happy to help if needed. David asked about Healthy Lake Winona having another work day, and would like to talk with John and Healthy Lake Winona members to set up a work day, probably on a weekend. 4. Community Garden Discussion: John communicated that he spoke with Lynette about the CEQC Community Garden report, and she believes it accurately captured the discussion and the CEQC' s conclusions. She did ask for sq. footages of the sites to be included to better show scale. John made those changes and shared it with the Park and Rec. department. Dan asked about whether neighbors have been consulted about the potential garden locations? John said not yet, but he fully expects the Park and Rec. department would meet with the neighbors if the dept. wanted to move forward with the sites. John believes the next steps are for the Park and Rec. department to review the sites, so the CEQC has done their duty. As news develops, it will be shared with the CEQC. 5. CEQC Member Recruitment: Dan asked about progress on potential candidates. Julie has asked some people she knows about joining the CEQC. Dan wondered if Richie Swanson would be a good fit. Richie is a very knowledgeable about birds and active with Aghaming Park. David knows Richie and thinks he may be fully committed with other obligations. David or Dan will talk with Richie when they see him next. John mentioned Nathan Engstrom who is the WSU sustainability coordinator. Nathan expressed interest in December 2019, so John will follow up. Dan expressed that Nathan sounds like a qualified candidate. 6. Other Business: Dan asked about the dredge sand disposal sites and if the DNR was in charge of that process. John explained that the US Army Corps of Engineers is the main regulatory body and driver of the project. The Corps of Engineers continues to work with the City on developing plans for dredge sand disposal. John noted that the City Council did communicate to the Corps that they disapproved of the plan to expand the Latsch Island sand storage area. John is not sure what progress has been made for the Homer sand storage area. 7. Adjournment: Julie excused herself from the meeting at 4: 49 pm, and quorum was lost. Notes prepared by John Howard.  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 3. Environmental Considerations with Annexation Proposals PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: August 6, 2020 20th At the July City Council meeting, there was a public hearing regarding the annexation of parcels of land within Wilson Township. One of the commenters, Gabe Ericksen, inquired about environmental protections and enhancements, and urged the City to require ecological improvements with annexation proposals. His letter to the City Council and staff is attached. Mr. Ericksen will join the CEQC to discuss this idea. Gabe Ericksen Letter to City Council Aware that the City of Winona plans to expand its urban development of the surrounding rural landscape ( the Bradford Senior Living Cooperative), we would like to see the city better address environmentally sustainable development in our natural areas. The residents of Winona, and in this case specifically the residents of Pleasant Valley, greatly value the visual, ecological and aesthetic characteristics of our natural areas. We urge that city policy continue to be developed that will both protect and enhance these assets. Attempts have been made by the City of Winona to protect our slopes with its bluffland ordinance. Article XVII, Section 43. 81 point 4 states one of the goals: To promote the retention and improvement of those ecological and vegetative qualities[..]. Previously, the City of Winona has required very little in the way of` improvement' of areas surrounding development projects. They have opted, rather, for a hands- off approach to `natural areas'. But simply leaving environments in their supposed given ` natural- state' does not guarantee ecosystem health or sustenance. Most of Winona' s surroundings suffer from a state of Terrestrial ( and Aquatic) Eutrophication. This is a condition where a historically recent lack of natural disturbances such as fire or grazing, as well as inputs of atmospherically deposited Nitrogen from fossil fuel combustion and agriculture have led to an imbalanced ecosystem. In turn, this has led to invasion by exotic species, collapse in diversity, and a reduction in the provision of many beneficial ecological services ( such as erosion control and water purification). If the City of Winona continues to expand its footprint out into the surrounding valleys, we would like to see its administration begin to address these concerns in a comprehensive manner. Plans specifically detailing how natural areas will be both enhanced and maintained should be agreed upon before development proceeds. Development in the bluffs and valleys will take place on properties with varying slopes. Much of the land will be entirely unbuildable. Large percentages of each property will be available for enhancement. To mitigate the negative environmental impacts of urban development, it is important that these areas be specifically addressed rather than simply ignored. Components to an environmentally appropriate plan for developing within and adjacent to natural areas include: Requiring on- site Water Retention and Infiltration recharging the aquifers ( rain- gardens, detention swales etc.) Grassland and Wildflower Habitat for Birds, Pollinators and other Invertebrates most slopes to < 30% canopy cover, Woodland ( Savanna) Canopy Reduction ( returning selecting for primarily White Oak and Hickory species) with the restoration of a grass and wildflower understory (this is our optimal ecosystem for sustaining diversity and for the provision of beneficial ecosystem services). Long Term Ecosystem Management Planning that may include Prescription Burning, Grazing, Haying, Biomass/ Timber Harvest etc. Control of Urban Deer Populations ( among other things, to reduce vehicle and property damage and to increase human safety). Natural area planning requires additional environmental engineering consultation ( by engineers who understand effects of Terrestrial Eutrophication). It is important that Winona develop a strategy for a we continue to grow. addressing these concerns while, as city,  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 5. Renewable Energy Procurement Proposal PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: August 6, 2020 At the end of June, the CEQC staff liaison received a letter from the City of Minneapolis asking if the City of Winona would be interested in joining a group procurement for renewable energy. The basic idea is a pool of municipalities would get a better rate on renewable energy credits or have sufficiently large enough energy use to incentivize Xcel Energy to create a bulk rate. Current green energy offerings from Xcel Energy ( Windsource and Renewable* Connect) come with a small extra cost ( about 1 cent/ kWh). The attached letter provides some additional information on the City of Minneapolis proposal. City Staff took this request to the City Council who passed a motion supporting staff involvement with Minneapolis on exploring renewable energy option. Staff will keep the CEQC abreast of developments. Minneapolis www.minneapolismn. gov City of Lakes July 23, 2020 Mr. John Howard Natural Resources Sustainability Coordinator City of St. Louis Park 207 Lafayette Street Winona, MN 55987 Dear John: The City of Minneapolis has embarked on a plan to have all of its municipal operation' s electricity needs come from 100% renewable sources by 2023. The City is planning to release a Request For Proposals this summer for developers to submit resource plans to provide the renewable electricity at a reasonable price. As Energy Manager and Sustainability Director for the City of Minneapolis, we are contacting the City of Winona and other governmental customers of Xcel Energy to see if your organization would be interested in joining the City in this effort. The concept here would be to aggregate all of our organizations' renewable electricity needs into a single large request for a new program from Xcel or an outside developer to provide renewably sourced electricity at a price significantly less than Xcel Energy' s current green tariff offerings. In several areas around the country, large electricity users are working with their electricity providers to create new special contracts and innovative tariffs that bring inexpensive renewably generated power to the users. Some of these successful efforts have occurred even in highly regulated power markets such as ours here in Minnesota. The City has begun talks with Xcel Energy about these alternatives, and our next meeting with Xcel will occur in the July. We would like to provide Xcel with an aggregated list of large governmental users at that time to help them plan for new renewable resources in the 2020— 2025 timeframe. If the city of Winona would be interested in discussing this effort, please get back to either of us with a contact from within your organization to carry out further discussions. Thank you for your attention to this project to bring more renewably generated electricity onto the gird. Sincerely, Brian Millberg, Energy Manager City of Minneapolis brian. millberg@minneapolismn. gov Kim Havey, Sustainability Director City of Minneapolis kim. havey@minneapolismn. gov  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 6. Sustainability Master Plan PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: August 6, 2020 The City will begin the first stages of a sustainability master plan in the coming month. One of the very first steps is to develop a planning committee to guide the planning process. City leadership feels it is important to include a wide swath of the community, and thus have CEQC members and the public be on the planning committee. At this meeting, staff would like to determine which CEQC member( s) would be interested in serving on this committee.  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 7. Lake Winona Water Quality Improvement Plan PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: August 6, 2020 At the second City Council meeting of June, the Council received a presentation about a study to improve the water quality of Lake Winona from consultants commissioned by the County and City. The emphasis of the consultants' work was toward phosphorus reduction. Both lake basins have elevated phosphorus at or above state standards, and thus the state will require action to reduce the phosphorous load. The final study report is complete, and is accessible online: https:// drive. google. com/ file/ d/ 1wDNBIzhgEMUPMrDvN8Va- r- PKJPIvdXx/ view. It is a long report at nearly 60 pages, but if you read the executive summary and pages 23, 24 and section 7. 3, you will get a broad perspective of the problem and potential solutions. Staff will give a short presentation of the conclusions and answer questions. The slides presented to information The 45 minutes the City Council are included to give the overall and conclusions. presentation can be viewed here: https:// www. facebook. com/ watch/ live/? v= 579943639376641.  whks BARR mC m j4si j ? ` a Water quality improvement plan to restore Lake Winona f 4 reg Wilson June, 2020  whks Project background and objective Lake ecology, water quality and phosphorus sources Outline TMDL vs. current study Watershed characteristics and monitoring Watershed and in- lake modeling Prioritizing improvement options  whks Elevated phosphate concentrations in Lake Winona are causing water quality problem problems. WHKS & Barr were retained statement and to evaluate possible solutions for project reducing phosphorus loads to Lake objective Winona.  whksTYPICAL FOOD CHAIN BARR PISCIVOROUS ---- , L Noe" FISH 1- 2 FEET LITTORAL ZONE IIIII- PIANKTIVOROUS '' '.../ TERRESTRIAL ii;... .. PLANTS EMERGED FISH t.'-. I FEET PLANTS 1 FLOATING PLANTS ZOOPLANKTON background on t SU6MERGED V 1 0 INCHES ii MTS lake ecology 4 .4 ALGAE P 4" 111 RONS 3 BENTHIr_ ZONE--# 1• t a NUTRIENTS NUTRIENTS BENTHIC ,.- 1 - ORGANISMS  whks BARR Phosphorus feeds algae and causes algal blooms excess Algae decreases water phosphorus 1XL4 clarity means poor water quality Algal decay depletes dissolved oxygen near the T lake bottom M  whks External Sources Storm water runoff from hard impervious) surfaces where does the Leaves & grass clippings phosphorus Fertilizers come from? Pet/ animal waste Soil erosion Septic systems  1 whks BARR Internal Sources Phosphorus can be stored in lake bottom sediments and released when where does the oxygen levels are low phosphorus come from? O 0 O M  whks BARR Growing Season Mean Water Quality Standards and Lake Wiriogik Oisentations Minnesota Water Quality: Chl- a( Secchi( m) TP( ppb) ppb) Standards and Lake Name 2010 2011 2018 2010 ( 2011 2018 2010 12011 2018 North Central Hardwood evidence of Forest( Minnesota General 40 14 1. 4 Standards for Phosphorus, problem Chl- a, and Turbidity) Lake Winona( Southeast Bay) 52 I 54 63 53 I 50 I 31 1. 0 1. 0 — North Central Hardwood Forest( Minnesota Shallow Lakes Standards for 60 20 1. 0 Phosphorus, Chl- a, and Turbidity) Lake Winona( Northwest Bay) 87 83 55 76 I 60 I 18 1. 1 0. 6  whks BARB the maximum TMDL Load Reduction amount of a specific total maximum pollutant that can daily load dischargedMos TMDL) be to 0 a waterbody and still meet water Existing TMDL quality standards  whks BARB 39% TP load reduction to NW basin 38% from MS4 stormwater 23% from remaining watershed TMDL summary 94% from internal load 31 % TP load reduction to SE basin 41 % from MS4 stormwater 30% from NW Bay and direct drainage 100% from internal load  whks BARR TMDL This study Watershed None Seven sites; three with flow monitoring Watershed Land use specific, annual P8 calibrated to daily water TMDL and modeling export rates ( from quality monitoring and literature) phosphorus load data; current study o o simulates Boilers Lake (& other differences o BMP) phosphorus removal Lake water BATHTUB average annual, Mass- balance spreadsheet quality steady- state model w/ model calibrated to daily modeling optimized internal load observations residuals. NW Bay modeling based on lower volume Implications for Overestimates internal Quality control issues with results load and phosphorus some of the 2018 water quality leaving Boilers Lake and samples NW Bay  Lake Name Developed Developed( Low Developed( Medium Developed( High Forest Shrub/ Scrub Herbaceous Emergent Herbaceous Open whkSJ Open) Intensity) Intensity) Intensity) Wetland Water 18% 0% 1% 1% 22% BARB Winona SE 13% 25% 17% 3% isommine 23% 0% 3% 1% 10% Winona NW 10% 29% 20% 3% N to N. i N. Lake Winona I., . ; e watershed land 4 ° a n. cover III: 1 Storm Sewer 1( e Marta Flow Arrows Creeks s 1 1 Po Ponds National Land Cover etl, Low O Po Watersheds Dataset 11) oresst [ yyoody Emergent en Develcped, O 11411 Herbauuaus High Intensity Wetlands Weds Shrub/ Scrub Deuduous m a- engirt Dpen water O Developed, spm ® Forest r' n cuinvated Mused Forest Developed. M. Crops i whks ks HerEa.. N. NI Metlium r-:: I Barren Land 1 FT' lntensity O Hay/ Pasture 1:  whks BARR liel w 0. N 4_ 1 ' 3 v City of Winona 1 Y storm sewer e -? irp drainage til 4 r i.--' Creeks 3'• 4-4 Storm Sewer Mains 40 4ela Stormwater Ponds Y 44 416, m m 44 4 whks 1  whks BARR 1. 1 114. 4 b4„.. Ti i t Lake Winona arelaanie. ' subwatersheds i Or 1. 3 ..; A: e'/, ' --- 1 Flow Arrows 75 l Creeks i P8 Ponds d- • .!. ,. • I 7 . 4 p P8\ Watersheds BARRm. whks 1  whks f BARR I—.- nrr, r rt, r 414°'''.;;'''', 7$ h_, VL a yC ti if . 4C T yj' f .; ,' F - i ':,, D - i,, a . x ,. .„-, v,„}...,-. 4.,...„.,..i.,... ir.,:::.: 4 n, i 1' , S..„ f = t` rt' s i„ 7 i 4 l I Jltu ur, 9 Q, C it f--'''''''.-':-""'''..;.., . 7 ii s, rrore- rKe or! IOW 1. t a - t .. mak ' , t n Flow Rile ro mmwv+ rou+ iill * x F• t a k j{ l Y onc.trilan Creeks Po Palls y' 1 z ( N 1 k a** 0 3. o00 a It y" STORMWATER FLOW r whks DIAGRAM 1 R x e i. .; 1:: FIGURE4  whks BAR R ibaigitHIPASENSI ii 111 I • . II 1.. 1 I I•1 I 1i ll ' 1' I El rill i. Dally Prectortaban a 7 50 7 Precipitation inches) Lake Winona 1' 7t 1 40 7 subwatershed Discharge 30 7 monitoring Tore Creek Winona Inlet weer CeeJt, man eAny su Lake Winona Met ft..... 14eVe. 9 vhzto 0, 1O, ilk kiik 4 I, qi, k t. , Munk; ay IAN, oi 0 f I M 7/ 9 8/ 8 9/ 7 01/ 7 5/ 10 6/ 9 Date( 2018) 1,  BARR y MON di wr • mss;. ,,... y p MIN g tt a ,+ • s • P } h ' 1' 1 f 1! V '^ S j'. Ih.. i k1 7. 4,.. 4,, s f t.„}`' y 1 fir dS `..` J 1, 388 ounds 818 pounds Q, 228 pp b 1.. . 185 ppb i•- R y t„, 594 pounds 76 ppb r f a K wx r rryk k sL } r /-_ Legend C. F N Monitoring Sites IIIIIIIIIIIr— ANEW 2018 monitored TP load ( pounds) and flow- weighted mean TP conc. ( ppb) at each site  c: t r F rr * BARR i J immoimeo y, y VI 1 72 , c — ''' ''"\. 7' . ,- ' 0,. t ‘-.: s', Boilers Lake r bathymetry zoo sooI' Foe r r SURVEYED DEPTH( FEET) Boilers Pond Water Quality Improvements Winona, MN i`T FIGUREX t,  whks BARR 7.:- t'..1* • x--; 1. ..--;'.' 4'.:. .. '., -' . - 1! j _ ' ,-"''''':'.'- ,, 3.- A '-' 0,41,,,. di-•, '. -,• t, ," I.:< 2.,:• 4.,. 7;..' 10"--- e*. 744 ;;,." 47. - ' - 7-.----,::.- sh s‘,* '• ' . or,, -„ 1'..-.*:.'' '''--"''''''- '" eli ' -* Lake Winona 2 „ 2:,,., bathymetry i 1 ., 4-, 8 ; i_ i 4. 0,„ ..„ 7,..„.„. t, BARR Ihh-j. . whks IA 2'' 1. 111111111111111111W IMO. 11111. 111111. 11. 1111. 11111111111 0*—  hks Relationship between Modeled and Measured TP—Lake Winona NW Basin 0. 30 BARB Modeled TP 140 0. 28 • — Measured TP 0. 26 • • internal Load 120 0. 24• 0. 22 - E0. 20 • 100 0 0. 18 calibrated lake a 0. 16 . Bo N water c 0. 14 • quality 60 0. 12 • modeling 0. 10 - 40 0. 08 0. 06 • 20 0. 04• 0. 02 0 0. 00 5/25118 6/ 4/ 18 6114/ 18 6124118 714/ 18 7114/ 18 7/ 24/ 18 8/ 3/ 18 8113/ 18 8/ 23/ 18 9/ 2/ 18 9/ 12/ 18 9/ 22/ 18 102/ 18 10/ 12/ 18  whks BARB Lake Winona Northwest Bay Lake Winona Southeast Bay Phosphorus Sources Phosphorus Sources 2018 lake water Atrnospenc Deposition, 4, 0% r Internal Loading, 10° o 152, Internal Loading, 307, 25, 0 quality Direct Watershed, modeling— 5,,,-/,W,), Boilers Lake, 442, 37% 1 262, 18% phosphorus loads pounds, %) 5 I Lake tMnona \, NW Outflow. \ 440, 37% Atmos hen Deposition Direct Drainage i 12, 1/ o to Lake, 446, 30%  NW Lake Winona TP load reduction whks to meet standard: BARR 700 Lake Winona NW Existing 600 ICondition a Lake Winona NW Modeled S 500 Outcomes 0a 0 400 0 F 300 2018 lake water E 200 15% from 100 quality Internal watershed Direct Drainage to WS Runoff to Atmosperic Loading Rollers Lake modeling- Lake Gilmore Ditch Creek Deposition phosphorus SE Lake Winona loads 700 Lake Winona SE Existing Condition 600 pounds, Lake Winona SE Modeled 60 ppb in NW a 500 Outcomes o basin; 46 lb. v 400 from direct 0 watershed and 1 t'- 300 eliminate E L 2 internal load 100 0 Direct Watershed Lake Winona NW Atmospheric Internal Loading Outflow Outflow Deposition  whks 1. Stormwater treatment in NW Bay inflow 2. Assess carp movement and control population Best 3. Control internal P release in SE Bay Management 4. Stormwater treatment in SE Bay direct Practice (BMP) drainage prioritization 5, Lower priorities ( not integral for WQ compliance) Gillmore Creek BMPs ( septics, WASCOBs, grassed waterways) sex) Modifications to Boilers Lake  whks BARB w Treatment of d` NW Bay inflow ttza r 1- r, y Pond- j- b row; Y v r_ m L/ 2EWMOFM F WATER W4rtY 51UO0 3 whks7 yV I STORANf4TEA PROPOSEDPONO IAPGF FR: UFlE In Need 15% TP reduction from combined watershed inflow to NW Bay :'  i Whks ahe Num a no; t Alum Treatment BARR control SE Bay a 25 internal P load 3 20 1 15- 1i T •. 11111111111111 j,. G d AJC 0 19881989191019311932113315111' 33513. 13. 1998133/ 1 020012W22W3 N. 2005] W6200, 0013 MO 2010 2011 2012 2013 2019 2015 2015 201] 201') r• e r, f,,1 j 7..:' ' 7,,,,,,,,, 77 First Day of Alum Treatment Last Day of Alum Treatment  whks BARB Aluminum forms permanent bond with phosphorus Forms " floc" that sweeps phosphorus from the water column and settles on the lake bottom how alum works Works under low oxygen conditions O.. w 00-00 11),!"  whks BARR it c.,.. 4 bad-!4 q• otential grassed s waterways in r Lake Winona 1, i E watershed kr V F : c  whks BARR ii* e' er potential water and sediment r< control basins WASCOBs) in Lake Winona 0 watershed x f s vamrut wostoe gyp; . .... Whks fia" BASIN r  whks BARB Estimated Summer Water Quality Improvement P Option Season TP Reduction Opinion of Potential Costs Annual Cost per Pound TP Removed($/ lb) lbs/ yr) Construct Stormwater Treatment Pond for Ditch 210 1, 600, 000 500 Drainage to Northwest Bay of Lake Winona cost- benefit Alum Treatment of Southeast Bay of Lake 246 200, 000 54 Winona Southeast Bay Direct Watershed Stormwater 46 2, 500, 000 3, 600 BMP( s) Carp Assessment and 60 500, 000 560 Control Alum Treatment of Northwest Bay of Lake 120 400, 000 220 Winona  whks Dredging High cost, water quality benefit limited by underlying sediment P concs. other BMPs Rain gardens and distributed filtration considered practices Higher cost; could work with street reconstruction if native soils can infiltrate  whks BARB 2018 monitoring/ modeling results Stormwater runoff from direct drainage areas represent Overall largest source of TP loads to Lake Winona Summary Sediment P release is important for SE Bay Boilers Lake is providing good treatment for TP Carp population exceeds management threshold a;' : Y Recommendations Treat stormwater from direct drainage to each Bay Control internal P load in SE Bay k y Assess carp movement and control population Lake vegetation management plan; control curlyleaf pondweed