HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober PacketFalcon Heights Environment Commission
October 10th, 2016
6:30 p.m.
Agenda
1) Approval of Minutes – July and September
2) News and Announcements
3) Presentation from Julie Drennen
4) SCORE Grant
5) Pollinator Resolution Example
6) Blue Star Review
7) LoGoPEP Update
Next Meeting: November 14th
If you have a disability and need accommodation in order to attend this meeting, please
notify City Hall 48 hours in advance between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at
651-792-7600. We will be happy to help.
Falcon Heights Environment Commission
July 11, 2016
6:30 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
Present: Chair Miazga, Secretary Olson, Staff Liaison Moretto, Commissioners Hall
and Holmes.
1) Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the May 9th, 2016 meeting of the Environmental Commission were
approved.
2) News and Announcements
There will be no August meeting of the Environmental Commission.
It was advised to check your email filter. Emails from the City addressed to
Commissioners may be getting blocked.
It was brought up that plastic bags might not be recycled by Tennis as was initially
thought. It was recommended to take plastic bags to places like grocery stores,
which often have a recycling program in place for the bags.
3) Ice Cream Social
Help was requested to staff the Environmental Commission table and to provide
crowd education. It was recommended that outreach should take place to help staff
a youth commissioner.
Staff Liasion Moretto reminded Commissioners that they are representatives of the
City, and should act accordingly.
4) MPCA Sponsorship Event Recap
The event that took place in June did not have a large attendance, but was well
received by those who attended. A video of the public meeting is available.
Commission discussed ways to get more publicity for future events.
6) Public Comments
Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 PM
Next Meeting: Monday, September 12th, 2016
Falcon Heights Environment Commission
September 12, 2016
6:30 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
Present: Chair Miazga, Vice Chair Montgomery, Secretary Olson, Staff Liaison
Moretto, Mayor Lindstrom, Commissioners Hall, Holmes, and Wasserman.
1) Approval of Minutes
Approval of the Minutes from the July 2016 meeting of the Environmental
Commission was tabled until next meeting.
2) Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan
Ryan Johnson, Environmental Specialist from the City of Roseville, gave a
presentation on the draft update of the Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP).
Because of shared engineering services, the City of Falcon Heights’ CSWMP is
included with Roseville’s update. The current plan must be revised because of
Minnesota Rules. This next version of the plan is due by December 31, 2018.
Liaison Moretto will send out a link for comment by Commissioners.
3) Presentation by Erin Rupp
Erin Rupp, Pollinate Minnesota, presented information about Governor Dayton’s
recent orders to protect pollinators. Erin has a model resolution that the City could
adopt to help implement best practices to become more pollinator friendly.
The Commission moved to include reviewing this resolution on the October meeting
agenda.
4) Score Grant
The Score Grant provides funds to for recycling initiatives. Commission moved to
request City Council allow City Staff to apply.
5) Leslie Brandt – Update
Motion was passed to encourage the City Council to act on providing staff time to
complete Urban Forestry Vulnerability Worksheet.
6) Alliance for Sustainability Event Discussion
Agenda item was tabled until next meeting
7) Blue Star Award Program
The Blue Star Award Program is similar to the Green Steps Program, but with more
emphasis on water quality. Due to the limited surface water within Falcon Heights,
points to qualify for the award may be difficult. Liasion Moretto asked the
Commission to review the application. Further discussion was tabled until the next
meeting.
8) LoGoPEP Partner Cities update – Mayor
Mayor Lindstrom recently went to the kickoff meeting. This program helps to
facilitate meeting Met Council’s Comprehensive Plan requirements. Requests by
City staff were made to involve the Commission in participating in future meetings.
9) SolSmart – Mayor
The Mayor provided a draft letter in support of the City’s participation in the
SolSmart Program.
Motion was passed by Commission to encourage the City to complete and submit
the letter.
10) News and Announcements
No additional news was submitted
11) Public Comment
No public comments were provided.
Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM
Next Meeting: Monday, October 10th, 2016
Page 1
Blue Star Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment
Phase One Final Assessment
This document is for review purposes only.
Below is a PDF version of the assessment questions contained in the Blue Star Award Program’s
Community Stormwater Management Assessment. This document is for reference only. All community
assessments must be completed online at www.bluestarmn.org. For questions, contact Blue Star Award
Program Coordinator Trevor A. Russell at (651) 222-2193 extension #18.
SECTION ONE – PLANNING & PRESERVATION
Part A: Water Friendly Development Patterns
1. Does your community comprehensive plan allow the following sprawl-limiting strategies?
(Select all strategies that apply)
Mixed-use development (1 pt)
Compact development (greater than 3 units/acre)(1 pt)
Transfer of development rights (1 pt)
Redevelopment of underutilized previously developed sites (1 pt)
Other applicable: ________________________________(1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. Does your community have any of the following incentives specifically targeted to ‘brownfield’
development and redevelopment sites? (Select all that apply – then check appropriate score box
below))
Density bonus
Funding for remediation
Streamlined permitting
Reduced impact fees
Tax increment financing
At least 2 of the above incentives:(2 pts)
At least 3 of the above incentives: (3 pts)
Not applicable in my community (N/A)
3. Does your community require or encourage Low Impact Development (LID), decentralized
stormwater management, and/or Better Site Design (BSD) standards for new development and
redevelopment? (Select all that apply)
Required for new development and redevelopment (3 pts)
Required for new development only (2 pts)
Encouraged for new development and/or re-development (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Page 2
Part B: Natural Resource Preservation & Management
1. Does your community comprehensive plan include an inventory of high quality natural resource
areas and are land-use decisions guided by the inventory in order to protect these areas from
development?
Yes, inventory used to guide protection (4 pts)
Yes, inventoried (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. Does your community allow filling for development within the floodplain and if so, are
restrictions imposed excluding storage of hazardous materials and requiring compensatory
storage for fill?
No fill within FEMA and locally defined floodplain allowed (4 pts)
No fill within FEMA floodplain allowed (3 pts)
Fill allowed with the above restrictions (2 pts)
Fill allowed without restrictions (-1 pt)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
3. What is the minimum width of vegetated wetland buffers required for new developments in
your community?
Minimum of 25 feet for all wetlands but increase with quality and function of the
resource.(3 pts)
Minimum of 25 feet for all wetlands (1 pt)
No standard / I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
4. What is the minimum width of stream buffers required for new developments in your
community (A), and do those buffer standards include any floodplain, steep slope, vegetation or
resource quality considerations (B)?
Part A (select appropriate answer):
Minimum of 100 ft feet for all streams (4 pts)
Minimum of 70 feet for all streams (3 pts)
Minimum of 50 feet for all streams (2 pts)
Minimum of 25 feet for all streams (1 pt)
No standard / I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Not Applicable in my community (N/A)
Part B (select all that apply & then check the scoring box below)
Additional buffer width to encompass 100-year floodplain
Additional buffer width in areas with steep slopes (9% or greater)
Buffer language clearly specifies vegetated cover requirements
Expanded stream buffer requirements for sensitive resources,
such as trout streams and/or ORVWs?
1 of the stream buffer practices (1 pt)
2 or more of the above standards (2 pts)
None of the above standards apply in my community
Page 3
5. Does your community protect high quality or sensitive wetlands through a Resource
Management Plan or Wetland Management Plan?
Yes, plan exceeds state standards (2 pts)
Yes, plan meets state standards (1 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Not Applicable in my community (N/A)
6. Does your community encourage the establishment and sustainability of urban forests through
the following strategies: (select all strategies that apply, then check appropriate score box
below)
Insect & disease control
Increased care during establishment
Encouraged boulevard tree establishment
Increased indigenous diversity
Tree protection and replacement ordinance
At least 2 of the above strategies:(1 pt)
At least 3 of the above strategies:(2 pts)
At least 4 of the above strategies: (3 pts)
7. Does your community have land use protections and/or development restrictions that preserve
steep slopes (18% or greater) in a stable, undisturbed vegetated state?
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Not Applicable in my community (N/A)
8. Does your community require stormwater infiltration to be implemented, consistent with the
Minnesota Department of Health guidelines, in wellhead protection areas?
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Part C: Stormwater Management Funding & Incentives
1. Does your community have any of the following stormwater management funding mechanisms?
Ongoing Funding Mechanisms:
Stormwater Utility User Fee
Other applicable:____________________________
Yes (3 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. Does your community have any of the following expanded infrastructure stormwater
management funding mechanisms? (select any that apply, then check appropriate score box
below))
Page 4
Stormwater Connection Fee
Stormwater Special Assessment
Stormwater Tax District
Other applicable:_____________________________________
Yes (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
3. For existing/developed sites, does your community allow for on-site reductions in stormwater
fees for the retrofitting of stormwater management practices?
Yes for commercial, industrial and residential (2 pts)
Yes for only commercial and industrial (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
BONUS
A. Has your community adopted a stable funding mechanism for land acquisition of high quality
natural resource and/or riparian buffer areas within the last 10 years?
Yes (1 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
B. Are your community’s wellhead protection areas mapped – and are these maps referred to
during development review?
Yes – mapped and referred to during development review (2 pts)
Yes – our wellhead protection areas are mapped (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Not Applicable in my community (N/A)
SECTION TWO – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS &
PRACTICES
Part D: Impervious Cover Management
1. Does your community allow proof-of-parking or shared driveways to minimize impervious
surface?
Yes (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. For retail/shopping areas larger than 10,000 sq ft of floor space, what is your minimum
required parking ratio for (per 1000 ft2 of gross floor area)?
Fewer than 3.5 parking spaces (3 pts)
3.5 to 4.0 parking spaces (2 pts)
4.1 to 4.5 parking spaces (1 pt)
Greater than 4.5 parking spaces (0 pts)
Page 5
We have a maximum parking ratio of 4.0 or less (4 pts)
3. What is your minimum required office building parking ratio (per 1000 ft2 of gross floor area)?
Fewer than 3.0 parking spaces (3 pts)
3.0 to 3.5 parking spaces (2 pts)
3.6 to 4.0 parking spaces (1 pt)
Greater than to 4.0 parking spaces (0 pts)
We have a maximum parking ratio of 3.5 or less (4 pts)
4. What is your minimum stall width for standard parking spaces?
9 feet or less (2 pts)
9.1 to 9.9 feet (1 pt)
Greater than 9.9 feet (0 pts)
5. For new residential lots, does your community require or encourage impervious surfaces like
roofs and drive ways to drain to vegetated areas?
Required (3 pts)
Encouraged (1 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Not Applicable in my community (N/A)
6. Does your community require or encourage, where feasible, parking area landscaping to be used
for bio-retention of stormwater volume and/or water quality management?
Required (3 pts)
Encouraged (1 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Part E: Stormwater Management Policies
1. For new development, do your community stormwater management standards apply to all new
impervious surfaces, or is a minimum threshold (de minimis) included?
Standards apply to all new impervious surfaces (10 pts)
Standards apply to 10,000 sq. ft. or more of new impervious surface (8 pts)
Standards apply to .5 acres or more of new impervious surface (4 pts)
Standards apply to 1 acre or more of new impervious surface (1 pt)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. For new development, do your community stormwater standards require rate control based on
the difference between a baseline-condition and post-development runoff condition?
Yes, our baseline condition is Pre-European settlement (5 pts)
Yes, our baseline condition approximates woods/grass in good condition (3 pts)
Yes, our baseline is pre-development (existing) conditions (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
3. Does your community require best management practices (BMPs) for all new development that
will result in 90% reduction in total-suspended-solids (TSS) and/or 60% reduction in total
phosphorous (TP)?
Page 6
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
4. Are post-construction sediment and nutrient loading requirements customized to downstream
water resources?
Yes (3 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
5. Has your community adopted an erosion and sediment control ordinance?
Yes (10 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
6. For new development, do your community stormwater management standards require, where
feasible, runoff volume control?
Yes, up to 0.5 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces (3 pt)
Yes, 0.6-1.0 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces (9 pts)
Yes, 1.1-2.0 inches of runoff from impervious surfaces (12 pts)
Yes, no runoff volume increase for the 2-yr, 24-hr event (9 pts)
Yes, no runoff volume increase for the 5-yr, 24-hr event (12 pts)
Yes, no runoff volume increase for the 10-yr, 24-hr event (15 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
7. Do your community stormwater management standards specify pretreatment requirements for
stormwater prior to discharge into all volume control best management practices (BMPs)?
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
8. Do your community stormwater management standards apply to all redevelopment?
Yes, reconstructed and net increase in impervious surface (9 pts)
Yes, net increase in impervious surface only (4 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Not Applicable in my community (N/A)
9. Do your community stormwater management standards apply to roadway reconstruction?
Yes, reconstructed and net increase in impervious surface (9 pts)
Yes, net increase in impervious surface only (4 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Part F: Green Streets For Cleaner Water
1. For public, residential access and sub-collector streets (with fewer than 500 average daily
trips) what is the minimum roadway pavement width allowed in your community?
24 feet or less (4 pts)
Page 7
25-26 feet (2 pts)
27-28 feet (1 pts)
Greater than 28 feet (-1 pt)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. Does your community set radial maximums for residential cul-de-sacs without center islands?
Yes, 30 feet or less (3 pts)
Yes, 35 feet or less (2 pts)
Yes, 40 feet or less (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Not Applicable in my community (N/A)
3. Does your community require or encourage central, depressed vegetated/pervious islands on
cul-de-sacs with a radius greater than 40-feet?
Require (2 pts)
Encourage (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Not Applicable in my community (N/A)
4. Does your community encourage curb-cuts, ribbon curb or right of way swales for infiltration
and conveyance of stormwater runoff in lieu of curb-and-gutter along residential roadways?
Yes, allowed and encouraged (2 pts)
Yes, allowed (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
5. Does your community allow & encourage pervious/permeable surfaces on
residential/commercial area sidewalks, and residential/commercial parking lots?
(select all that apply)
Yes on residential/commercial sidewalks (1 pt)
Yes on residential/commercial parking lots (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Bonus Stormwater Standards:
A. Do your community development standards require soil ripping at least 1 - 2 feet deep after
mass grading is complete for all soil types where appropriate?
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
B. Do your community development standards require or recommend adding a soil amendment
where appropriate?
Amendments required (3 pts)
Amendments recommended (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Page 8
C. Does your community allow the use of trees and native vegetation to count towards your
community volume control standards?
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
D. Does your community have stormwater water reuse standards and/or incentives for
stormwater reuse?
Yes (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
E. Does your community encourage or require any of the following water conservation strategies:
(select all that apply)
Smart irrigation systems that track weather patterns
and mitigate unnecessary watering (1 pt)
The use of low-water vegetation (1 pt)
Even/Odd watering bans (1 pt)
Water Conservation Rate Structure that exceeds DNR minimum requirements (1pt)
Other: _______________________(1 pt)
SECTION THREE – STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION
Part G: Education & Community Programs
1. Does your community participate in stormwater pollution prevention education & outreach
programs such as: (select all that apply)
Metro Blooms educational workshops (within last 3 years)(1 pt)
The NEMO Program (within last 3 years)(1 pt)
The Clean Water Minnesota Media Campaign (annually)(1 pt)
The Blue Thumb Program (annually)(1 pt)
Other similar program (please specify): ______________________(1 pt)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. [For non-MS4’s only] Does your community have residential and education programs targeted
to prevent stormwater runoff pollution?
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
3. [For MS4 Cities only] Does your community have residential and business education programs
such as: (select all that apply, then check appropriate score box below)
A city newsletter that regularly includes a variety of stormwater
pollution prevention messages at least 4- 6 times each year
A city website with that regularly includes a variety of stormwater
pollution prevention messages at least 4- 6 times each year
Page 9
Educational stormwater pollution prevention workshops for residents
Education and outreach program for local businesses
A storm drain stenciling program
Regular utility bill inserts with stormwater educational messages
Sponsorship of community education events and/or clean ups
Adopt-a-Storm Drain program
Stormwater BMP demonstration sites with educational signage
At least 2 of the above strategies:(1 pt)
At least 3 of the above strategies;(2 pts)
At least 4 of the above strategies: (3 pts)
More than 4 of the above strategies: (4 pts)
4. Does your community promote and/or provide financial assistance for the implementation of
stormwater pollution prevention & treatment practices and projects for residents or local
businesses?
Yes – promotion & financial assistance (3 pts)
Yes – promotion only (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
5. Which of the following certification and training opportunities does your community make
available to municipal staff on a regular basis:
Erosion & sediment control certification (1 pt)
Illicit Discharge detection & elimination training (1 pt)
NEMO “Stormwater U”(1 pt)
Minnesota Road Salt Symposium (1 pt)
Fertilizer & Pesticide use minimization training
for institutional, parks, residential or commercial property managers? (1 pt)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Part H: Inspection & Enforcement
1. [Non-MS4 question only] Is your community’s stormwater system mapped?
Yes (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. Are all active construction site erosion & sediment control standards inspected and enforced on
all sites?
Yes (4 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
3. Does your community have an inspection & maintenance schedule for stormwater management
practices - including catch basin sumps & stormwater ponds?
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
Page 10
Part I: Source Control
1. Does your community responsibly manage and use deicing materials and sand through the
following practices:
Use of covered deicing material storage (1 pt)
Minimize use of a deicing materials (1 pt)
Staff are trained and certified in the guidelines laid out in
the MPCA’s 2006 Winter Parking Lot and Sidewalk Maintenance Manual (1 pt)
Staff are trained in the guidelines laid out in the
MNDOT Snow & Ice Control Handbook (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
2. Does your community have a street sweeping plan that prioritizes sweeping in untreated areas
that are directly tributary to lakes, streams and wetlands?
Yes (2 pts)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
3. Does your community have a residential yard waste collection program?
Yes (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
4. With what average annual frequency are your community’s public residential streets swept?
Three or more times a year on average (3 pts)
Twice or more a year on average (1 pt)
Fewer than twice a year on average (0 pts)
BONUS
A. Does your community own and operate a high efficiency regenerative air or vacuum assisted
street sweeper?
Yes (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
B. Has your community adopted a policy encouraging the use of asphalt-based seal coating and /
or limiting the use of coal-tar based asphalt sealants on public or private driveways, roads, and
parking lots?
Yes (1 pt)
No (0 pts)
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
C. Does your community require & enforce maintenance agreements for privately maintained
stormwater facilities?
Yes (3 pts)
No (0 pts)
Page 11
I don’t know / not specified (0 pts)
At Pollinate Minnesota, we’re working toward a MN that’s better for pollinators and people.
www.pollinatemn.org erin@pollinatemn.org, 612.245.6384
Pollinator Friendly Resolution Best Practices
Pollinator Friendly resolutions are a way to celebrate the pollinator friendly practices your
municipality already has in place. They are also critical to changing practices to protect
pollinators and are catalysts to bigger change in your communities, statewide and nationally.
While all resolutions are pledges for pollinator protection, these best practices can add detail
and scope to improve pollinator health in your community.
Why pass a pollinator friendly resolution?
• Pollinators like bees are critically important to our ecosystems and our food
systems. And they’re struggling. As beekeepers in Minnesota in 2014-15, we lost
51% of our hives. Our over 400 species of native bee are also in decline.
• The causes of pollinator decline are known.
o Our ecosystems no longer have the abundance of clean flowering plants
pollinators need. Bees are hungry; they need more flowers. Wild bees also
need habitat.
o Pollinators are exposed to pollinator lethal insecticides, including
neonicotinoid and other systemic insecticides, which are used
prophylactically in land management, agriculture, and nursery practices.
o Pollinators suffer from parasites and disease, including the honey bee
parasite the varroa mite.
• Minnesotans care deeply about bees. As individuals, Minnesotans are doing what
we can, choosing with our hearts, our dollars, and our trowels to help bees. It’s not
enough. We need to change policy to curb pollinator declines.
• MN State law preempts smaller municipalities’ ability to regulate pesticides,
but doesn’t restrict a municipality’s treatment of the land it manages. Passing a
pollinator friendly resolution sends the message that you care about this issue and
are doing what you can with your own land.
• YOUR MUNICIPALITY CAN BE A NATIONAL LEADER ON THE
ISSUE. While a few cities have passed resolutions, this is a new trend, and one your
municipality can be at the forefront of.
Key pieces of strong resolutions
Reducing pollinators’ exposure to pollinator lethal insecticides by eliminating use of
neonicotinoids and other systemic insecticides.
Neonicotinoid pesticides are a driving factor behind pollinator decline. At high doses,
neonics can kill bees, butterflies and songbirds outright. At lower doses, neonics impair
pollinators’ navigation, reproduction, communication, and immune system functioning.
We’re seeing drift with neonics-the USGS found them in 75% of tested waterways in the
Midwest, and recent research found higher concentrations in the pollen of wildflowers
surrounding coated canola rapeseed fields than in the pollen of the canola flowers the neonic
was applied to. Beyond neonicotinoids, many other pesticides, on their own or in
combination, weaken pollinator health.
At Pollinate Minnesota, we’re working toward a MN that’s better for pollinators and people.
www.pollinatemn.org erin@pollinatemn.org, 612.245.6384
1. Eliminate use of neonicotinoid and other systemic insecticides.
a. Neonicotinoids are one class of systemic insecticide, and other systemics, like
Fipronil, are known to be toxic to pollinators. We’re seeing federal movement
toward increased regulation of neonics (hopefully), and we know, historically, when
one chemical becomes restricted, industry replaces it with a similar compound, often
with equal toxicities. Articulating “neonics and other systemic insecticides” in your
resolution addresses concerns with current and future systemic insecticides.
2. Improving/ reassessing municipality Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plans. IPM is a
land management strategy that emphasizes controlling pests with the least possible
disruption to ecosystems, and is not a term we have a shared definition for. Use specific
language around IPM policy change.
a. For example: “Direct all city departments to develop an Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
program that requires site inspections, monitoring and prevention strategies, an evaluation on the
need for pest control, and when pest control is warranted the use of structural, mechanical, biological
and other nonchemical methods first, and if nontoxic options have been exhausted, the use of least-
toxic pesticides that have been certified organic or are exempt from federal registration on all public
grounds and exterior spaces within the city to protect pollinators.”
b. Track departments’ IPM and pesticide use. If the number of departments with IPM
plans or currently using neonics is unknown, an initial assessment to establish a
baseline can be part of the resolution.
3. Defining exceptions very specifically.
a. Managed spaces like golf courses and premiere athletic fields have higher pesticides
loads than most lawns. We know that pollinators don't traditionally visit spaces like
premiere athletic fields or lawns for food, as there aren’t many flowering plants, and
pesticide exposure at the time of spray when applying according to label may be low.
Yet, we know, in agricultural applications, these chemicals move to nearby flowering
plants, to our groundwater and throughout the environment. Limit the number of
exceptions, and define them specifically.
b. Seek out alternatives in the areas with exceptions. Pilot projects with more
sustainable options including non-chemical controls. Many municipalities have
written in pilots for alternative management in their areas of exception.
c. These are the sticking spaces nationally- everyone’s having trouble thinking about
transitioning away from systemic insecticide use in these spaces. There is a real
opportunity for national leadership in managing premiere athletic fields for
pollinators.
4. Transitioning to organic management.
While replacing a neonic with for an organic or pollinator friendly option is not often
a one for one - chemicals like Merit are not easily replaced with a less toxic chemical
alternative in treatment of Japanese beetle larva for example- there is national
precedent in transitioning to organic management. With increased soil health
insecticides are no longer needed. National resources, like Beyond Pesticides
(www.beyondpesticides.org) will provide free training for municipalities who pilot
organic management.
Increasing Clean Pollinator Forage in the City
Pollinators are hungry; they need pollen and nectar sources all season long. Our over 400
species of native bee- and all our other insect pollinators- also need places to live.
At Pollinate Minnesota, we’re working toward a MN that’s better for pollinators and people.
www.pollinatemn.org erin@pollinatemn.org, 612.245.6384
5. Increase pollinator friendly habitat.
a. Use native, sustainably and locally sourced seeds and plants when possible.
b. Increase forage by over seeding managed lawns with clover.
c. Decrease herbicide use on managed lawns to increase flowering plants. Dandelions,
clover, and even creeping charlie provide critical food for our hungry bees, often at
times of year when they need it most.
6. Consider unique land management relationships; think about all the ways your
municipality interacts with land.
a. Increasing habitat on land you own, including parks, vacant lots, fire and policy
stations, water works, other municipality facilities.
b. Consider changing regulations to increase pollinator forage.
i. For example: Encourage pollinator friendly planting/systemic insecticide free
landscaping in new building development.
7. Source clean plants.
a. Amend purchasing policy to require plants be free of pollinator lethal insecticides.
Many nursery-grown plants are treated with systemic insecticides, but truly pollinator
friendly plants that aren’t treated are becoming more available. Ask for them.
b. Adopt clear guidelines against the use of pesticide-treated plants. Consider
pollinator-friendly amendments to your municipality’s Vegetation Management
Policy.
Include goals, timelines, and mechanisms to track success of the resolution.
8. Include dates and goal related specifics, from the amount of land transitioned to the
number of city departments who report IPM, to make your commitment to pollinator
health clear to the public.
9. Name a department to maintain an internal resource for other municipality departments
and be responsible for monitoring resolution success.
10. To celebrate an increase in the amount of pollinator forage, you need to know how
much you started with. Determining a baseline can be a part of the first stage in your
resolution.
Communicate!
11. Include public communication and education in your resolution.
a. Informed the public of your resolution and ongoing progress.
b. Engage and encourage the public to change their practices to be more pollinator
friendly.
c. Name a department responsible for this communication.
Engage in broader policy change.
12. Communicate your resolution to your elected officials, other government departments
and agencies, both locally and nationally, including agencies that manage land within
your municipality (like the Department of Transportation.)
13. Include statements in support of state and federal pollinator protection initiatives. An
example from Minneapolis’s resolution: “Be it further Resolved that the City of Minneapolis will
continue to advocate at the State and Federal level for increased authority to address the non-agricultural
use of pesticides, and for other pollinator-friendly policies” and from Seattle’s: “The Mayor and the
Seattle City Council strongly urges the US House of Representatives to pass the Save America’s
Pollinators Act (HR 2692).”
At Pollinate Minnesota, we’re working toward a MN that’s better for pollinators and people.
www.pollinatemn.org erin@pollinatemn.org, 612.245.6384
RESOURCES
• NATIONAL. Beyond Pesticides (www.beyondpesticides.org) will bring courses on
transitioning to organic land management to you! The Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation (www.xerces.org/) has excellent plant lists and resources
for increasing habitat. The Pesticide Action Network (http://www.panna.org/food-
farming-derailed/bees-crisis) and the Center for Food Safety
(http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/304/pollinators-and-pesticides) are
good resources on ongoing science.
• LOCAL: Pollinate Minnesota (www.pollinatemn.org), Pollinator Friendly Alliance
(www.pollinatorfriendly.org) and Humming for Bees (www.hummingforbees.org)
have each spearheaded resolutions in their communities and consult with interested
communities.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 14 -066
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING "BEE- SAFE" POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council and Park Commission have undertaken
several work sessions dedicated to the study and understanding of promoting a healthy natural
environment through the reduction and elimination of harmful pesticides; and
WHEREAS, bees and other pollinators are integral to a wide diversity of essential foods
including fruit, nuts, and vegetables; and
WHEREAS, native bees and honey bees are threatened due to habitat loss, pesticide use,
pathogens and parasites; and
WHEREAS, recent research suggests that there is a link between pesticides that contain
neonicotinoids and the die -off of plant pollinators, including honey bees, native bees, butterflies,
moths, and other insects; and
WHEREAS, neonicotinoids are synthetic chemical insecticides that are similar in
structure and action to nicotine, a naturally occurring plant compound; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the public interest and consistent with
adopted City policy for the City to demonstrate its commitment to a safe and healthy community
environment through the implementation of pest management practices in the maintenance of the
city parks, open spaces and city property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood:
I. The City shall undertake its best efforts to become a Bee -Safe City by
undertaking best management practices in the use of plantings and pesticides in all public places
within the City.
2. The City shall refrain from the use of systemic pesticides on Shorewood City
property including pesticides from the neonicotinoid family.
3. The City shall undertake its best efforts to plant flowers favorable to bees and
other pollinators in the City's public spaces.
4. The City shall designate Bee -Safe areas in which future City plantings are free
from systemic pesticides including neonicotinoids.
5. The City shall undertake best efforts to communicate to Shorewood residents the
importance of creating and maintaining a pollinator - friendly habitat.
6. The City shall publish a Bee -Safe City Progress Report on an annual basis.
4825 -8825- 3468.1
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th
day of July, 2014.
Scott; erby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Je n Panchyshyn, 06 Cleq-k
4825- 8825- 3468.1