Citizen's Environmental Quality Committee

May 2, 2022 Citizens Environmental Quality Committee Winona, Minnesota 55987 Dear Committee Members: The next meeting of the Citizens Environmental Quality Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. in the Misato Room at City Hall. 1. Call to Order 2. Review of April Meeting Minutes 3. Amendment to Land Disturbance Policy for Invasive Species Control (20 minutes) 4. No Mow May Consideration (20 minutes) 5. Community Garden Update (5 minutes) 6. Sustainability Plan Update (5 minutes) 7. Other Business (5 minutes) 8. Adjournment Sincerely, John Howard Natural Resources Sustainability Coordinator CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES DATE: Thursday April 7, 2022 TIME: Scheduled for 4:30 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers PRESENT: Lynette Power, Julie Fassbender, Niki Ciulla, David Ruff and Dan Hall GUESTS: Gabe Ericksen STAFF: John Howard 1. Call to Order: Call to order at 4:32 PM by Dan Hall (Chair). 2. Review and Approval of Feb. 2022 Meeting Minutes: Motion by Julie, second by Dan. Approval unanimous. 3. Amendment to Land Disturbance Policy for Invasive Species Control: John asked Gabe to introduce himself. Gabe works as an ecological restoration contractor as well as landscaping. He described his work in Cobblestone Creek area and interest in more restoration work. He said there has been some conflict with homeowners desiring to undertake restoration work such as invasive species control, but have been hampered by city prohibition in protected areas. Gabe believes the policy change is a good start, but additional flexibility for restoration would be better. Gabe said invasive buckthorn is the most common plant, followed by boxelder. Chain sawing the buckthorn and some boxelder would aid in restoration by opening canopy cover. Julie asked if this was work was principally on public or private lands. John said it would mostly be private for Cobblestone, but Gabe clarified that changes would be useful in other areas in the public realm such as bluffs. John shared a map showing the bluff areas and shoreland areas as defined in City code. Currently any significant restoration work in bluffs requires a land disturbance permit, which carries a $225 application fee and requires a hearing with the Planning Commission. John stated that the proposed changes would allow for restoration contractors to submit a plan in lieu of the land disturbance permit, and get approval in a matter of days. This will allow for more timely work when seasonal constraints require work in a small timeframe, such as ecological burning. John said there is also protections for land areas called Natural State Area, which can be in the bluffs, but also include wetlands and natural vegetation. Currently homeowners can do restoration work in these areas without a permit so long as it is with hand equipment but not mechanical equipment. This makes the scale of work smaller. Another dimension to consider is shoreland and stream protections, which are outlined in a separate section of code. The UDC has provisions that no vegetative alteration work is allowed within 50 -75 feet of waterway (specific categorization determines which distance). There is not a permit to allow the work like the NSA or bluff areas. Julie made a motion to approve the code changes, seconded by David.  Niki asked if Gabe had any recommendations for the revised language? Gabe asked about whether chain saws are allowed? John said they would be under the proposed changes, but the City would need a plan to approve the work. Discussion ensued about herbicide spraying. Lynette asked about whether a list of permissible of herbicides will be provided, or to prohibit certain pesticides? John said specifying a herbicide has not been required, other than saying appropriate use of herbicide. Gabe says the label says quite a bit of how herbicide can be used. David said commercial pesticide applicators are regulated. David suggests saying selective spraying. Niki said the cost of the permit looked like it could be a problem. John explained that under the proposed changes, the fee would not apply to most work since the land disturbance permit would be replaced by an administrative review. It would apply for work in the top 50 feet of the bluff. David suggests including the top 50 feet as that can have trickle down effects. Julie asked about the rationale for not including the top 50 feet. John said screening is the main consideration. Gabe asked about restoration projects involving removing out of place native species, such as cedars in bluff prairies. John said that the changes don’t apply to native species removal, so a land disturbance permit would still be required. John said City staff is wary of bad actors abusing the clearing ability if native species are allowed to be removed as part of restoration. Julie suggests adapting code if bad actors are abusing the situation rather than potentially holding up good actors through overly restrictive practices. Niki believes code can be written in such a way as to allow clearing without abuse. David suggests staff review could make sense of whether the removal makes ecological sense. Julie retracted her initial motion, and rephrased to “accept revisions to code as stated, with the addition of permitting the top 50 feet of a bluff to be cleared of invasive species without a land disturbance permit”. David seconded, all in favor. 4. Air Quality Concerns with Residential Woodburning: John described a situation where a resident has expressed concern over their neighbor’s perpetual wood burning, but not a clear violation of any City Code. The resident believes it is a nuisance, but without additional clarification in code, the City is not likely to do enforcement. Dan was reluctant to support prohibiting outdoor burning since it is a common and cherished activity by residents. Lynette noted her relative’s experience with smoke entering their house, and how it can be pervasive. David understands the interest in burning, but from a pure public health and environmental health dimension, it can be a nuisance. No firm resolution to the situation. 5. Other Business: Niki announced the St. Mary’s Making Waves event on 4/12 in the Toner Center. All are welcome. Julie asked that the City provide an update on the community garden process, as it has been over a year since the CEQC input session. 6. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 5:56 pm. Unanimous. Notes prepared by John Howard.  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 3. Amendment to Land Disturbance Policy for Invasive Species Control PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: May 5, 2022 At the April meeting, the CEQC considered amendments to City Code so residents can more easily undertake restoration projects on their properties. Staff intends to take the CEQC’s recommendations to the Planning Commission for discussion and a public hearing. Staff would like to renew the discussion of this topic for a code amendment based on amended language. Changes from April language: • Stating goats and animal browsers are an acceptable invasive control method. • Allowing invasive species removal in the top 50 feet of the bluff without a land disturbance permit. • Including broadcast spraying as a land disturbance permit trigger. • Permitting intensive vegetation clearing in shoreland impact zones with a land disturbance permit. • Allowing selective plant removal in shoreland impact zones with staff review and approval. 43.02.32 Bluffland Protection Overlay District C) 3) 3) Exemptions. The scope of this section shall not apply to the following, provided that any exempted activity shall fully comply with all other applicable laws and/or permitting requirements of the City. If located within a High Potential Burial and Archaeological Site Area, all activities shall adhere to provisions of MS 307.08 of Minnesota’s Private Cemeteries Act: g) Control and removal of invasive noxious weeds necessary to promote the overall health and sustainability of the land to a natural state. Work shall follow best management practices and be guided by a plan submitted to and approved by the Community Development department. Individual property owners may conduct these activities by non-mechanical means (ex. hand pulling, hand sawing) without submitting a plan to the Community Development department. The use of goats or similar grazing animals for invasive species control shall require a management plan. ….. 6. Exceptions- Bluff Impact Overlay Districts. The following activities may be permitted within Bluff Impact Overlay Districts, if preceded by the approval of a Land Disturbance Activity Permit: c)Native vegetation restoration projects, and the control and removal of invasive plant species, and noxious weeds (by mechanical means), provided that: i.The Planning Commission (Commission) finds that the activity, and method of carrying it out, is necessary to maintain the overall health and sustainability of forest the land, and will not compromise the purpose and intent of this section. In making this finding, the Commission shall consider expert or state agency comments and recommendations. ii.The activity is carried out in conformance with any applicable local or state laws and permitting requirements, including the City of Winona Stormwater Management Ordinance. iii.If occurring within a distance of 50 feet from either side of a Top of Bluff, the Commission shall determine whether, or not, the activity will result in the loss of screening benefits both from and towards, any structural use of land located upland of the activity. If it determines that screening benefits will be lost, it may apply conditions requiring the planting of native trees within 50 feet either side of a Top of Bluff. iv.A site vegetative restoration plan is prepared by a qualified person and includes the use of native plant materials. 43.04.26Natural State Areas (NSA) B)Disturbance. Once designated, no person shall conduct any land disturbance activity, within an NSA, unless in accordance with this section and Section 43.02.32. The term “Land Disturbance Activity” shall be defined as a change in the use of land that would result in any form of topographic modification, increase in impervious surface coverage, or vegetative alteration. 1) Land Disturbance activity shall include, but not be limited to: A) Any grading, grubbing, filling, and excavating b)The construction of any structure, building, impervious walk/path, swimming pool, deck, patio, driveway, street, retaining wall, and public/private utility. c) The establishment of formal lawns and gardens, or the cutting, thinning, and/or removal of existing living and dead native vegetation. d) Broadcast spraying of herbicide. 2)This term Land Disturbance within an NSA shall not include: a)….. b) Native species restoration projects or Tthe removal of noxious weeds , as defined by Minnesota Rules Section 1505.0751, subp. 8 from a designated NSA, provided that the method of workremoval conforms to a plan submitted to and approved by the City. Individual property owners may conduct these activities by non-mechanical means without submitting a plan to the Community Development department.is by hand pulling, hand cutting, and/or the hand application, excluding sprays, of appropriate herbicides. If the method of noxious weed removal involves the use of motorized or mechanical equipment, spraying, or the disturbance of vegetation which is not classified as noxious, approval shall be required. Structure and On-site Sewage System Setbacks (in feet) from Ordinary High Water Level*. 1.Setbacks* Table 43-15: Structure and On-site Sewage System Setbacks (in feet) from Ordinary High Water Level Classes of Public Waters Structures Sewage Treatment System Unsewered Sewered Lakes Natural 150 150 150 Environment General 75 50 50 Development Rivers Tributary 100 50 75 Special Waters 150 100 100 Shore impact zone: Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. z)Shoreland: Land located within the following distances from public waters: 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from the ordinary high water level of a river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. 43.02.34. E. 3 Shoreland Alterations All alterations of vegetation and topography shall fully adhere to Chapter 68, and shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. If the shoreland includes a Natural State Area designation, the area shall be managed and maintained in accordance with Section 43.04.26. a)Vegetation Alterations. i.Exemption. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section 43.02.34(E)(4)of this Chapter are exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow. ii.Removal or Alteration of Vegetation. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as regulated in Section 43.02.34(E)(6), is allowed subject to the following standards: 1.Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed unless approved in a Land Disturbance Permit for habitat restoration. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed compliant with Section 68.04 of this Code. 2.In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, no clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed unless necessary to mitigate a hazard to life/property and any vegetation removal within bluff impact zones must be compliant with an erosion and sediment control plan per Section 68.04 of this Code. 2. Selective removal of native trees and noxious weed/invasive vegetation removal is permissible without a Land Disturbance Permit if accompanied by a restoration plan approved by the City. 3.The above provisions in (1) and (2) are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead or diseased.  CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM: 4. No Mow May Consideration PREPARED BY: John Howard DATE: May 5, 2022 Various Minnesota cities are enacting a policy of “No Mow May” where not mowing yards in May would be allowed. The objective is to create more pollinator habitat and blooms. Additional background on the initiative: https://beecityusa.org/no-mow-may/ Staff would appreciate CEQC input on supporting a “No Mow May” policy.