district 6 natural resource inventory

TITLE OF REPORT Date of Report

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory

Report

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN February 2015

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory Report

BY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Project conducted in partnership with: City of Saint Paul District 6 Planning Council By: Barr Engineering Co.

Saint Paul, Minnesota February 2015

District 6 Planning Council

\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621154 Dist 6 Nat'l Resource Inven\WorkFiles\Report\District 6 NRI_revised final report.docx

i

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory

February 2015

Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Methods .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Field methods ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Results ....................................................................................................................................................................................12

3.1 General Observations ..................................................................................................................................................12

3.2 MLCCS Evaluation and Verification .......................................................................................................................12

3.2.1 Desktop .......................................................................................................................................................................12

3.2.2 Field Investigation Results ...................................................................................................................................14

3.3 Tree Canopy Cover .......................................................................................................................................................16

3.4 General Vegetation Community Types ................................................................................................................17

3.5 Invasive/Exotic species................................................................................................................................................17

3.6 Specific Parcel Information .......................................................................................................................................18

4.0 Management Goals, Strategies and Opportunities ..............................................................................................29

4.1 Management Goals ......................................................................................................................................................29

4.2 Management Strategies .............................................................................................................................................30

4.3 Specific Management Opportunities ....................................................................................................................31

4.3.1 Invasive Removal and Clean-ups ......................................................................................................................31

4.3.2 Native Plant Community Enhancements ........................................................................................................32

4.3.3 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement ............................................................................................................................32

4.3.4 Connectivity Enhancements ................................................................................................................................32

4.3.5 Preservation Target Parcels .................................................................................................................................32

4.3.6 Strategic Acquisitions/Easements .....................................................................................................................33

4.3.7 Other Natural Resource Management Actions ...........................................................................................33

5.0 References ............................................................................................................................................................................34

ii

List of Tables

Table 1 MLCCS Desktop Analysis Summary .......................................................................................................... 13

Table 2 Summary of Natural Areas ........................................................................................................................... 26

List of Figures

Figure 1 Project Area Stormwater Features and Wetlands (MN DNR NWI East Central Update)...... 3

Figure 2 Physical Features - Digital Elevation Model ............................................................................................. 4

Figure 3 Current Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 4 Historical Imagery ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5 Historic Water Resources ................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 6 MLCCS Classification (Barr) .......................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 7 Parcel Investigation ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 8 MLCCS Community Quality Ranking (Barr) ........................................................................................... 15

Figure 9 Management Opportunities …………………………………………………………………………………………… 28

1

1.0 Introduction

The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), working with the City of Saint Paul (City), initiated a

natural resource inventory (NRI) for a targeted study (or project) area within District 6, a neighborhood on

the north side of Saint Paul. The project area contains land uses found throughout the city, including

residential, industrial, rail corridors, and commercial.

The purpose of conducting this NRI is to help CRWD, the City, and District 6 understand, prioritize,

protect, and restore the area’s natural resources and irreplaceable open spaces. This is the first NRI

collaboration effort between CRWD and the City, and CRWD hopes to use this effort as a pilot to

determine the benefits and challenges of conducting urban NRI’s.

Using desktop data and field investigations, Barr conducted an NRI throughout the project area,

cataloging native and invasive vegetation in 24 locations in this highly-developed, industrial area of the

city. The NRI data and identification of management strategies and opportunities provided in this report

will be able to help CRWD and the City by:

Informing land use planning and development

Clarifying the project area’s value with regard to water quality and wildlife habitat

Identifying degraded areas and management problems

Identifying opportunities for natural resources protection and enhancement

Identifying opportunities for flood attenuation within the project area

Providing information that can be used to develop management priorities

The results of the desktop and field studies were used to develop a proposed approach to understanding

the purposes and means for managing remnant natural resources in the project area. Options for

management goals and strategies are presented in Section 4, along with selected specific management

opportunities. Using the information and data provided in Section 3, CRWD can follow the Section 4

recommendations to develop and articulate a management plan for the project area.

2

2.0 Methods

2.1 Site Description

Located within the North End neighborhood of Saint Paul, the project area’s western, eastern, northern,

and southern boundaries are defined respectively by Interstate 35E (I-35E), Rice Street, Arlington Avenue,

and Maryland Avenue (Figure 1). The project area is composed primarily of commercial and industrial

properties with residential land use on the east side. Approximately 251 acres in size, the project area

makes up 0.07% of the city’s total 35,931-acre land area.

The Gateway State Trail runs through a portion of the site and connects recreational users from Saint Paul

to Stillwater. This recreation trail runs beyond the south-eastern end of the project site through the

recently constructed Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary. The sanctuary is situated where the Soo Line Railroad

historically operated. To the north of the project area, an approximately 11-acre wetland complex is

evidence of the historic Trout Brook wetlands once present throughout the eastern portions of the project

site (Figure 2).

L'Orie

nt St

§̈¦35E

456731

456755

456731

456749

Timber

lake Rd

N Ja

ckso

n St

Jack

son S

t

W Geranium Ave

W Maryland Ave

W Orange Ave

W Rose Ave

W Arlington Ave

N Agate St

N Pa

rk St

N Abe

ll St

N Wo

odbri

dge S

t

N Sy

lvan S

t

E Maryland Ave

N Ric

e St

W Cottage Ave

N Albe

marle

St

W Ivy Ave

E Arlington Ave

Abell

St

E Hawthorne AveW Hawthorne Ave

W Hyacinth Ave

N Sy

lvan S

t

E Geranium Ave

E Rose Ave

N Pa

rk St

N Ma

yre S

t

Trout

Broo

k Cir

Norpac Rd

L'Orie

nt St

§̈¦35E

456731

456755

456731

456749

Timber

lake Rd

N Ja

ckso

n St

Jack

son S

t

W Geranium Ave

W Maryland Ave

W Orange Ave

W Rose Ave

W Arlington Ave

N Agate St

N Pa

rk St

N Abe

ll St

N Wo

odbri

dge S

t

N Sy

lvan S

t

E Maryland Ave

N Ric

e St

W Cottage Ave

N Albe

marle

St

W Ivy Ave

E Arlington Ave

Abell

St


W Hyacinth Ave

N Sy

lvan S

t

E Geranium Ave

E Rose Ave

N Pa

rk St

N Ma

yre S

t

Trout

Broo

k Cir

Norpac Rd

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure 1

Capitol Region Watershed DistrictSaint Paul, MN

Project Area Stormwater Features and Wetlands (MN DNR NWI East Central Update)

Subwatersheds

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Trout Brook Interceptor

St. Paul - Storm Pipe

Project Area

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, FWS, City of Saint Paul, DNR

Capitol RegionWatershed District

Project Area

2

L'O

rient

St

456731

456755

456731456749

Timberla

ke R

d

N J

acks

on S

tJa

ckso

n S

t

W Geranium Ave

W Maryland Ave

W Orange Ave

W Rose Ave

W Arlington Ave

N A

gate St

N P

ark

St

N A

bell

St

N W

oodb

ridge

St

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Maryland Ave

N R

ice

St

W Cottage Ave

N A

lbem

arle

St

W Ivy Ave

E Arlington Ave

Abe

ll S

t


W Hyacinth Ave

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Geranium Ave

E Rose Ave

N P

ark

St

N M

ayre

St

Trou

t Bro

ok C

irNorpac Rd

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure Physical Features - Digital Elevation Model

Project Area

Wetlands (MN DNR NWI East Central Update)Railroad

Building

Service Layer Credits: CRWD, FWS, City of Saint Paul, MN Geo, MN DOT


§̈¦35E

5

Cultural modifications for human purposes have generated nearly all of the current topographic, wetland

and other natural resource conditions in the project area (Bluestem Heritage Group 2013). Currently, the

site comprises a varied topography with a rail line crossing through the middle portion of the project area

(Figure 3). CRWD mapping and historical photographs indicate that most of the eastern half of the project

area was wetland, probably a mosaic of emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. Trout Brook historically

passed through the project area, roughly north-south through the center. The central rail corridor later

defined the site’s infrastructure as it developed into its current state. Specifically, Henry Anson Castle’s

History of St. Paul and Vicinity states, “The arrival of the railroads brought the complete transformation of

Trout Brook. No longer viewed as a corridor of natural beauty and resources, it was simply the most

efficient route for travel. The wild rice marsh at the outlet was now considered a “quagmire.” Baptist Hill

and other nearby hills were viewed as impediments to progress, and flattened out. The landscape was

flattened and filled, the valley floor was lifted by up to ten feet.” (quoted in Bluestem Heritage Group

2013). Available historic imagery post-1923 shows the changes that the railroad brought to the area

(Figure 4 and Figure 5).

2.2 Desktop Analysis

Initial evaluation began by compiling all relevant and publicly-available geospatial and site-specific data.

Geologic, topographic, hydrological, ecological, and cultural layers were analyzed to identify areas for

targeted field investigation.

In addition to existing data, Barr classified areas within the project boundary using the methods specified

within the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Minnesota Land Cover Classification

System (MLCCS) User Manual. MLCCS identifies observed physical land cover, e.g., vegetation, buildings,

pavement, water, etc. MLCCS describes an area such as the project site with land cover terminology as

opposed to more traditional land use descriptions. Using MLCCS for an initial evaluation of natural

resources in the project area provides a snapshot of the types and distribution of vegetated and non-

vegetated areas. This identifies areas of interest for further ground investigation. The initial desktop

classification was completed using high resolution aerial imagery and relevant Google Street View

photographs (Figure 6).

The MLCCS mapping was further refined using U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands

Inventory (NWI) mapping of the project area (MnDNR 2013).

Using the data extracted from Barr’s MLCCS analysis, anecdotal information provided by staff from the

City of Saint Paul and CRWD, and available geospatial data layers from various sources including the

MnDNR, Met Council, CRWD, City, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Barr

identified 24 sites for initial investigation (Figure 7). Owners of identified parcels were then contacted by

District 6 Planning Council and made aware of Barr’s planned field investigation.

2.3 Field methods

Barr ecologists visited the parcels selected for further field investigation August 28 and 29, 2014, to verify

the MLCCS analysis and to characterize general vegetation community types. The dominant species within

6

the vegetation community types at each parcel were identified, as well as physical features such as slope,

aspect, evidence of past disturbance and ongoing management practices (if any). Barr staff also looked for

previously unmapped wetlands, or wet areas that meet at least one of the three US Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) parameters for wetlands. In some of these suspected wet areas, soil data were

collected to determine the wetland status of the site. In addition, concentrations of noxious or specially

regulated weeds and other invasive non-native species were identified. Finally, Barr staff took numerous

photos of the selected parcels and general project area to document typical vegetation community types

and habitats.

L'O

rient

St

Gatew

ay S

tate

Trail

Wheelock Parkway

456731

456755

456731

456749

Timberla

ke R

d

N J

acks

on S

tJa

ckso

n S

t

W Maryland Ave

W Orange Ave

W Rose Ave

W Arlington Ave

N A

gate St

N P

ark

St

N A

bell

St

N W

oodb

ridge

St

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Maryland Ave

N R

ice

St

W Cottage Ave

N A

lbem

arle

St

W Ivy Ave

E Arlington Ave

Abe

ll S

t


W Hyacinth Ave

N S

ylva

n S

t

E Geranium Ave

E Rose Ave

N P

ark

St

N M

ayre

St

Trou

t Bro

ok C

irNorpac Rd

Trout B

roo

k

Nature

Sanctuary

SylvanField

Rice ArlingtonSports Complex

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure General Features

Project Area

Wetlands (MN DNR NWI East Central Update)City of Saint Paul Parks

Railroad

Bikeway

Elevation Contour (2')

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, FWS, City of Saint Paul, DNR,


§̈¦35E

3Current Conditions

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure

Saint Paul, MNCapitol Region Watershed District

1923

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure


1957

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure


1991

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure


1991

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure


1991

Project Area

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure


1991

Project Area

Historic Imagery

Service Layer Credits: MHAPO, MnGeo WMS

1923

1957

1991

Figure 4Historical Imagery

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure 5


Historic Water Resources

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, City of Saint Paul, DNR, Google, MN/DOT

Streets and HighwaysProject Area

Existing Building FootprintHistoric Wetland (1848 - 1922)

Historic Stream (1848 - 1922)

14123

13144

23211

14112

1411314112

14121

13144

13134

3217042130 14122

1412

3

13134

42410

14113

14123

6231

0

2321

1

14122

13144

23000

14122

42130

61120

23112 14123 14123

23111

2311

2

14123

4231

023

212

61830

2131

0

42130

14122

14123

4241

0

!;N0 580 1,160290

Feet

Figure 6MLCCS Classification (Barr)

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, City of Saint Paul, DNR, Google

Project Area


Short grasses and mixed trees with 26-50% impervious cover

Short grasses and mixed trees with 51-75% impervious cover

Buildings and pavement with 76-90% impervious cover

Pavement with 76-90% impervious cover

Buildings and pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Buildings with 91-100% impervious cover

Pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Short grasses on upland soils

Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

Altered/non-native deciduous forest

Altered/non-native deciduous woodland

Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - saturated

Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - seasonally flooded

Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated vegetation

Altered/non-native grass land with sparse deciduous trees - temporarily flooded

Tall grass altered/non-native dominated grass land

Long grasses on upland soils

Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

P lanted or maintained herbaceous vegetation

Upland soils with planted, maintained or cultivated mixed coniferous/deciduous trees

42130

42310

42410

61830

62310

61120

23212

23112

23000

21310

13134

13144

14113

14112

14123

14121

14122

23211

23111

32170

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure 7

Capitol RegionWatershed District

Project Area

Parcel Investigation

Project AreaParcelsRamsey

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service


1122 33

4455

6677 88

992424

101016161111

1212

1717

13131414

15151818

191923232121 22222020

Parcels of Initial InvestigationLabel PIN Label PIN Label PIN Label PIN

1 123-192922320054 7 123-192922430025 13 123-192922340044 19 123-1929223100072 123-192922310001 8 123-192922440022 14 123-192922340058 20 123-1929223201413 123-192922420017 9 123-192922440021 15 123-192922340059 21 N/A4 123-192922420015 10 123-192922430006 16 123-302922120080 22 N/A5 123-192922420020 11 123-302922120075 17 123-192922430012 23 N/A6 123-192922430024 12 123-192922430029 18 123-192922310018 24 N/A

12

3.0 Results

3.1 General Observations

Observations are presented in this section starting with a broad overview of the natural resource

characteristics of the project area, then discussing the site in increasingly finer detail. From a broad

perspective, the project area is dominated by constructed industrial/commercial surfaces throughout the

central and eastern portions of the site boundary. The northwest and southwest corners of the project site

are residential homes and yards in a standard grid pattern. The residential lot sizes range from about 0.15

to 0.25 acre, and typically have shade tree species (maple, oak, ash) and maintained lawns. The Burlington

Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad corridor curves southeast to northwest through the center of the

project area.

Despite the predominance of constructed surfaces within the project area, there is a wide range of natural

vegetation community types also present. During the field investigation, Barr staff observed scattered

prairie remnants, native-dominated forested stands, old field/woodland areas and several wetland areas.

Wetland areas visited by Barr included those mapped in the USFWS NWI mapping, as well as non-NWI

areas determined by Barr ecologists to meet the Corps criteria for wetlands.

The overall project area slopes gently to the east, with the northwest corner at approximately 840 feet

above mean sea level (AMSL) and the eastern edge of the project area at about 800 feet AMSL. The BNSF

railroad grade that cuts through the center of the project area ranges from approximately 830 to 860 feet

AMSL. Trout Brook, which drains Lake McCarrons in Roseville, flows through a large wetland complex

north of the center of the project area, approximately between Jackson Street and the former railroad

grade, entering the Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) pipe and tunnel system at Arlington Avenue. Trout

Brook, which historically flowed through the entire project area, is now conveyed by TBI through the

project area all the way to the Mississippi River. The recently-constructed Trout Brook Nature Preserve,

where a portion of the Trout Brook Interceptor has been daylighted, is immediately south of southeast

edge of the project area, on the other side of Maryland Avenue.

3.2 MLCCS Evaluation and Verification

3.2.1 Desktop

The MLCCS evaluation indicates that 210.5 acres, or over 83% of the 251.4-acre project area, has some

type of artificial land cover. “Artificial” refers to land cover types that are not naturally occurring or self-

sustaining. The most obvious of these land covers are buildings and paved surfaces; however, “artificial”

land covers also include planted and maintained surfaces such as lawns, residential plantings and gardens.

Thus the residential neighborhood that makes up most of the southwest corner of the project area is

considered an artificial surface by MLCCS terminology.

Non-artificial surfaces are primarily land covers of natural origin and sustained by natural processes. They

include grasslands, woodlands and forested areas. The total non-artificial land cover area is 40.9 acres, or

just over 16% of the project area. Areas dominated by remnant forest and woodlands total approximately

13

18 acres, or about 7% of the project area. Table 1 summarizes the MLCCS desktop evaluation of the

project area.

Table 1 MLCCS Desktop Analysis Summary

MLCCS Level 1 Type Acres Percent of total

project area

10000s - Artificial Surfaces and Associated Areas

13134 - Short grasses and mixed trees with 26-50% impervious cover 26.7 10.6%

13144 - Short grasses and mixed trees with 51-75% impervious cover 35.8 14.2%

14112 - Pavement with 76-90% impervious cover 8.6 3.4%

14113 - Buildings and pavement with 76-90% impervious cover 21.9 8.7%

14121 - Buildings with 91-100% impervious cover 14.5 5.8%

14122 - Pavement with 91-100% impervious cover 52.0 20.7%

14123 - Buildings and pavement with 91-100% impervious cover 51.0 20.3%

Total Artificial Surfaces and Associated Areas 210.5 83.7%

20000s - Planted or Cultivated Vegetation

21310 -= Upland soils with planted, maintained or cultivated mixed coniferous/deciduous trees 1.3 0.5%

23000 - Planted or maintained herbaceous vegetation 2.2 0.9%

23111 - Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils 2.0 0.8%

23112 - Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils 4.7 1.9%

23211 - Short grasses on upland soils 3.7 1.5%

23212 - Long grasses on upland soils 1.8 0.7%

Total Planted or Cultivated Vegetation 15.7 6.2%

30000s - Forested Areas

32170 - Altered/non-native deciduous forest 2.0 0.8%

Total Forested Areas 2.0 0.8%

40000s -Woodlands

42130 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland 7.9 3.1%

42310 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - saturated 8.4 3.3%

Total Woodlands 16.3 6.5%

60000s - Herbaceous Vegetation

61120 - Tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland 2.2 0.9%

61830 - Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated vegetation 3.3 1.3%

62310 - Altered/non-native grassland with sparse deciduous trees - temporarily flooded 1.4 0.6%

Total Herbaceous Vegetation 6.9 2.7%

TOTAL PROJECT AREA 251.4 100.0%

14

Barr staff ground-truthed the desktop MLCCS evaluation in the field, and decided that no major revisions

were warranted.

3.2.2 Field Investigation Results

During the field visit, Barr checked the desktop-mapped MLCCS types against on-ground conditions. No

major modifications were made to the desktop MLCCS mapping. We acknowledge that there is a fine line

between the “artificial” and “planted vegetation” MLCCS Level 1 classes, particularly with regard to

residential lawns and plantings; however, the intensive maintenance required for residential lawns and

vegetation warrants placement of those land covers under the “artificial” surface category.

MLCCS rankings for natural community quality were also assigned based on the field investigations.

Figure 8 shows the natural community quality rankings. These correspond to the following MnDNR

descriptions (MnDNR 2004):

A = highest quality natural community, no disturbances and natural processes intact. Site must be

visited entirely or partially to accurately assess its natural quality at this level

B = good quality natural community. Has its natural processes intact, but shows signs of past

human impacts. Low levels of exotics. Site must be visited entirely or partially to accurately

assess its natural quality at this level.

C = moderate condition natural community with obvious past disturbance but is still clearly

recognizable as a native community. Not dominated by weedy species in any layer. Minimally,

the site must be visited from the edge to accurately assess its natural quality at this level. D = poor condition of a natural community. Includes some natives, but is dominated by

nonnatives and/or is widely disturbed and altered. Herbaceous communities may be assessed with this ranking from a distance if large masses of invasive species are present and the entire community is visible.

NA = Native species present in an altered / non-native plant community. This NA ranking can

only be used if the site is field checked from the edge or to a greater degree, thus confirming the presence of native species within a non-native community.

NN = Altered / non-native plant community. These semi-natural communities do not qualify for

natural quality ranking. Using NN signifies the site has been field checked and confirms it is a semi-natural community.

There were no “A” or “B” ranked areas identified in the project area.

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure 8


MLCCS Community Quality Ranking(Barr)

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service, CRWD, City of Saint Paul, DNR, Google

Project Area

Community Quality Ranking

Not Ranked

C

D

NA

NN

16

3.3 Tree Canopy Cover

Tree canopy cover in the project area is at least 17%. This estimate is based on the MLCCS cover type

acreages, which indicates that slightly over 83% of the project area is artificial surfaces dominated by

buildings and pavement. However, the actual canopy cover in the project area is higher, because some of

the “artificial” MLCCS cover types have at least some degree of tree canopy cover. For instance, the

residential neighborhoods in the southwest and northwest corners of the project area are mapped in

MLCCS as artificial cover types “short grasses and mixed trees” with 26-50% impervious cover (13134), or %51-

75% impervious cover (13144). Trees along the edges of the railroad corridors are also mapped with these

MLCCS cover types. Making the conservative assumption that these neighborhoods and railroad corridors

have at least one-third of their area under tree canopy allows an adjustment of the overall project area

tree canopy cover to approximately 25%.

17

3.4 General Vegetation Community Types

The field investigations of the selected parcels, as well as windshield surveys around the project area,

allowed Barr staff to identify six general vegetation community types present in the project area. These

are:

Forests/woodlands – vegetation dominated primarily by hardwood trees, especially maples,

oaks, cottonwoods, green ash and hackberries. Other less desirable species such as boxelder and

Siberian elm are also common. Where conifers are present, they are typically planted Colorado

blue spruce. There are few naturally-occurring conifers in the project area.

Mixed native/non-native upland grasslands – grass-dominated areas vary widely in species

composition, ranging from maintained turfgrass to concentrations of native prairie species. In

most occurrences of natural, unmaintained upland grasslands, there is a mix of non-native species

such as smooth brome, orchard grass, timothy and Kentucky bluegrass, and natives including big

bluestem, little bluestem and Canada wild rye.

Old fields – These are areas that frequently intergrade into grass-dominated areas, or that occur

in pockets within open woodlands in the project area. As with grasslands, they typically have a

mixture of native and non-native species.

Residential areas – While not “natural” vegetation communities per se, residential areas can

contain, or can be managed to contain, a number of native species. Most of the residences in the

project area are in the northwest and southwest corners of the project area.

Wetlands – There are at least nine wetland basins in the project area, ranging from constructed

stormwater ponds to localized depressions, to larger wetland complexes. The two best quality

wetlands in the project area are on and adjacent to Parcel 1 near the northwest corner of the

project area (see below), and in Parcel 7 in the east central part of the project area. Good quality

wetlands are also in the southeast corner and central north edge of the project area (Parcels 24

and 2, respectively). The principal wetland functions provided by wetlands in the project area are

wildlife habitat, stormwater attenuation and water quality enhancement. MnRAM ratings and

wetland management classification rankings were not determined for wetlands in the project

area; however, specific management opportunities for all are discussed near the end of this

report.

3.5 Invasive/Exotic species

The terms exotic species and invasive species are often used interchangeably; however, invasive species

are exotic species that cause damage to established ecosystems and should be managed. While there are

a number of areas dominated by non-native invasives (ragweed, burdock, thistles, etc.), the project area is

relatively free of Minnesota Department of Agriculture Prohibited Noxious Weeds (MDA 2014). No species

on the State Prohibited – Eradicate List were observed during the field investigations. Two species on the

State Prohibited – Control List, spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum

salicaria) were found in the project area. Prohibited – Controlled weeds must be controlled, meaning

efforts must be made to prevent the spread, maturation and dispersal of any propagating parts, thereby

reducing established populations and preventing reproduction and spread as required by Minnesota

Statutes, Section 18.78. (MDA, 2015). One MDA Specially Regulated species, Japanese knotweed, was seen

in two locations in the project area.

18

During the field investigations, Barr staff also encountered the Minnesota Restricted non-native tree

species common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). Restricted

noxious weeds are plants that are widely distributed in Minnesota and are detrimental to human or

animal health, the environment, public roads, crops, livestock or other property, but whose only feasible

means of control is to prevent their spread by prohibiting the importation, sale, and transportation of

their propagating parts in the state except as allowed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.82 (MDA 2015).

In addition, the non-native tree species Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) and the introduced tree species

northern catalpa (Catalpa speciosa) were found in several locations throughout the District 6 project area.

All other tree species encountered are native or introduced to the area.

3.6 Specific Parcel Information

As noted above, Barr worked with the District 6 Planning Council to access 24 parcels that were identified

in the desktop analysis as being most likely to contain remnant native plant communities and other

natural resources of interest. These parcels are likely representative of vegetation community types in the

project area. Each of the parcels is described in detail below. The parcel numbers and locations

correspond to Figure 7. The parcel descriptions are also summarized in Table 2 and Figure 9, along with

the vegetation community type(s) in the broader project area that they exemplify, and preliminary

management recommendations.

Parcel 1 is a relatively large wetland (~3.2

acre) complex that takes up most of the block

bounded by Arlington Avenue to the north,

West Cottage Avenue to the south, Sylvan

Street to the east and Mayre Street to the

west. This is a NWI-mapped wetland. The

center of the wetland is open water with

stands of cattail (Typha sp.). Large

cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) surround the

center of the wetland, with a dense buckthorn

(Rhamnus cathartica) understory. The

outermost edge of the wetland along the south, east and west sides has a varied mix of native and non-

native grasses and forbs, including sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne), giant goldenrod (Solidago

gigantea), rice cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides), burdock (Arctium minus), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and

northern water-plantain (Alisma triviale). Dense sandbar willow (Salix exigua) stands are scattered along

the southern and western edges. Along the north edge of the wetland there are dense buckthorn

seedlings under the cottonwood, and several sedge species near the edge of the open water. Although

this is a wetland complex, it nonetheless floods occasionally beyond its boundaries. In addition, an

electrical distribution line physically bisects the wetland north-south. A large dead tree near the wetland

center appears to provide habitat for a number of birds and small mammals. Overall, despite some

degradation, the wetland in Parcel 1 is one of the best remaining natural resources in the project area. The

CRWD 2007-2008 Wetland Assessment Report notes the high invertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)

scores in the Cottage Avenue wetland, and referred to it as “a strong healthy wetland.”

19

Parcel 2 is an NWI-mapped wetland in the

southwest corner of Arlington Avenue and

Trout Brook Circle, east of the Post Office.

It is primarily an emergent wetland

dominated by cattails and reed canary

grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Purple

loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and

jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) are also

present. There are several medium-large

(10-28 inches in diameter) cottonwoods

scattered throughout the wetland and

along the perimeter of the wetland. The

trees in the center of the wetland are dying and/or have visible interior decay. This wetland floods

occasionally beyond its boundaries onto Trout Brook Circle. There were 2-6 inches of standing water in

several pools around the wetland during the field investigations. All standing water was densely covered

in duckweed (Lemna sp.), as well as areas of open water in the northern third of the site.

Parcel 3 is a highly-degraded, narrowly rectangular strip of non-native grasses and forbs. It is dominated

by smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), a Minnesota prohibited

noxious weed to be controlled, is also

present (No photo of Parcel 3).

Parcel 4 is a long (approximately 500-foot)

narrow wooded strip on a small rise on the

Advance Equipment property. It is

dominated by large cottonwoods (up to 28

inches in diameter), with boxelder (Acer

negundo) and Siberian elm (Ulmus siberica)

in the subcanopy. Buckthorn is dense in the

understory, and there is a large amount of

metal and wood debris, as well as piles of

dirt. There is a small linear NWI-mapped

emergent wetland at the toe of the slope

leading up into the woods. To the south of

Parcel 4, the strip of trees narrows, but

appears to connect eventually to Parcel 7

(see below).

Parcel 5 is a planted and maintained series

of vegetated strips along the southwest

edge of L’Orient Street. Moving southwest

from L’Orient Street, Parcel 5 is first a strip

of mowed turfgrass, then a row of

20

Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens), then a mixed native/non-native herbaceous strip before abutting a

commercial building.

Parcel 6 follows the Gateway State Trail southwest from L’Orient Street. Along the north edge of the trail,

there is an approximately 25-foot strip of primarily wooded and shrub vegetation, dominated by young

cottonwoods, green ash (Fraxinus

pennsylvanica), boxelder, Colorado blue spruce

and staghorn sumac (Rhus hirta). Between the

woody vegetation and the trails is an

herbaceous strip dominated by sweet clover

(Melilotus sp.), Canada goldenrod (Solidago

canadensis), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus

corniculatus), and other non-natives. Occasional

clumps of two prairie grasses, little bluestem

(Schizachyrium scoparium) and switchgrass

(Panicum virgatum) are also present. The south

side of the trail is initially maintained turf grass

between the trail and an adjacent commercial building. Further south there is mixed native/non-native

herbaceous vegetation on both sides of the trail.

Parcel 7 is accessed from the Gateway State

Trail, and is a large roughly rectangular parcel

that is primarily an NWI-mapped emergent

wetland with a forested and shrub perimeter,

but that also has a small upland wooded area

in the north end. The northern upland area is

densely wooded with cottonwoods over

smooth brome. The emergent wetland further

south is mainly a cattail (Typha sp.)

monoculture. However, the surrounding

tree/shrub perimeter is an interesting mix of

willow (Salix sp.), tamarack (Larix laricina), and

cottonwood, with herbaceous species underneath, including joe-pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum),

greenheaded coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata) and jewelweed. There is minor invasion of purple

loosestrife in the south end of the emergent wetland, and there is a patch of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia

japonica) along the southwest edge of the wetland. Japanese knotweed is an aggressive non-native

invasive species and a Minnesota Specially Regulated Plant species. The west edge of Parcel 7 abuts a

fenced auto salvage yard. There is clear evidence of trash and waste soil dumping over the fence into the

parcel.

21

Parcel 8 contains a roughly rectangular

NWI-mapped retention/detention pond

north of Parcel 24 (see below). The pond is

surrounded by a dense approximately 15-

foot strip of staghorn sumac and young

boxelder, over reed canary grass. Outside of

the perimeter shrubs/young trees is

maintained turf grass.

Parcel 9 is immediately north of Parcels 10

and 16 (see below). This parcel is primarily

occupied by the K-Mart building and

parking lot; however, the southern end of

the parcel is an upland herbaceous

vegetation community with both non-native

species and prairie grasses and forbs

present. The prairie grass species present

include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii),

switchgrass, little bluestem and side-oats

grama (Bouteluoa curtipendula). The

vegetation is currently mowed along the

western edge of the K-Mart parking lot,

including into the prairie grasses. There is a

small non-NWI-mapped emergent wetland

within this parcel.

Parcels 10 and 16 appeared to be distinct

in desktop review, but are actually

contiguous on the ground. This area is an

interesting forested/woodland dominated

by large cottonwoods, with black locust

(Robinia pseudoacacia), green ash and

boxelder also in the canopy and understory.

Brome and goldenrod are the dominant

herbaceous species. The parcels abut the

Gateway State Trail. Management

opportunities include development of a

“pocket park” and passive recreation, as well

as wildlife/pollinator habitat enhancement.

Parcel 11 is immediately north of Maryland Avenue, west of the BNSF railroad and south of the gravel

road at the edge of an auto salvage yard. The western half of this area is dominated by small trees and

shrubs, primarily boxelder (Acer negundo), Siberian elm, small cottonwoods, buckthorn (Rhamnus

22

cathartica). The upland portion of Parcel 11

also has an early mature northern catalpa

(Catalpa speciosa), one of several found

scattered throughout the project area. As the

parce l slopes gently to the east, it becomes

dominated by an NWI-mapped wetland

dominated by sandbar willow (Salix exigua),

horsetails (Equisetum sp.) and reed canary

grass.

Parcel 12 is located on the slope northeast

of the new Trout Brook Nature Preserve

parking and information area, and is a

recently-planted restoration area. The parcel

drops approximately 20 feet in elevation to

the northeast. The flatter portion at the top

of the slope has apparently been planted

with prairie grasses and forbs, but is

currently dominated by an annual cover

drop of oats and wheat, with sweet clover,

ragweed and other invasives also present.

This is typical of the early stages of a

restoration and re-planting effort; it is

expected that the desired planted species will begin to emerge and establish over the invasives with

proper maintenance. The sloped portion of the parcel has been planted with approximately 100 bur oak

(Quercus macrocarpa) and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) seedlings in deer-protection cylinders. The parcel

slopes down to a gravel road at the edge of an auto salvage yard.

Parcel 13 is a maintained park-like area at

the east end (dead end) of East Hawthorne

Avenue. The parcel features 10-12 large silver

maples (Acer saccharinum) and 4-5

cottonwoods over a maintained, mowed

open grassy area. There is no subcanopy,

understory or shrub layer.

Parcel 14 and Parcel 15 were mapped separately in the desktop study, but are similar in character on the

ground. Both parcels are predominantly artificial surfaces (pavement and building), but also have

significant remnant woodland and forested vegetation communities. Mixed woodland/old field in the

23

northeast corner of Parcel 15 joins woodland in the north end

of Parcel 14, and is connected via a narrow wooded strip to

cottonwood forest in the east-central part of Parcel 14. In

both Parcels 14 and 15, the cottonwoods present are up to

32 inches in diameter, which is among the largest in the

project area. The openings in the canopy are dominated by

Canada goldenrod, sweet clover and smooth brome. There

are scattered patches of prairie species, including big

bluestem, stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida) and heath aster

(Symphotrichum ericoides).

Parcel 16 - see Parcel 10.

Parcels 17 through 20 follow the railroad corridors.

Parcel 17 follows either side of the BNSF railroad between

Maryland Avenue and Jackson Street. Vegetation along the west side of the tracks tends toward an

emergent wetland community type, most likely because the tracks back up overland flow against the west

side of the railroad embankment. The east side of the tracks is drier because the elevation slopes away

from the tracks to the east. On the east

side, vegetation is dominated by blackcap

raspberry (Rubus occidentalis), brome and

Canada goldenrod. Further north, the west

side of the tracks also becomes more

upland in character, with boxelder,

cottonwood and non-native honeysuckle

dominating. The most immediate

management concern in Parcel 17 is the

eradication of a large patch of Japanese

knotweed along the west side of the tracks.

The proximity of this patch of Japanese

knotweed to the Trout Brook Nature Preserve underscores the need to eradicate the patch as soon as

possible.

Parcel 18 is the continuation of the railroad-associated plant communities north and west of Parcel 17, on

the west side of Jackson Street. Along its south edge, Parcel 18 is dominated by large cottonwoods, and is

contiguous with Parcel 15 (see above) (No photo of Parcel 18).

24

Parcel 19 is the abandoned railroad line

heading north toward Arlington Avenue. This

section of track is on an embankment

approximately 30 feet above grade. The

slopes of the embankment are a mix of

native and non-native grasses and forbs,

primarily smooth brome. Clumps of big

bluestem and other prairie grasses line the

top of the embankment along the tracks.

Parcel 20 is the east-west portion of the BNSF

railroad and adjacent land between Sylvan

Street and Rice Street. The prairie grass big

bluestem is common immediately adjacent to

the tracks on both sides. Further away from

the tracks, vegetation varies from linear

cottonwood stands to large staghorn sumac

clumps and strips of boxelder, green ash and

buckthorn.

Parcels 21, 22 and 23 are city-owned

rectangular parcels, each approximately 250 to

300 feet in length by approximately 50 feet in

width. The southern half of Parcel 21 is an

open water excavated wetland with cattail

around the perimeter. This is not an NWI-

mapped wetland. The Parcel 21 pond receives

runoff from two parallel drainage ditches to

the west of the parcel, and occasionally backs

up into these drainage ditches in high

precipitation events. Other species at the

pond include minor purple loosestrife,

hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), northern water-plantain and blue vervain (Verbena hastata). A

narrow strip of boxelder and buckthorn separate the pond from the north end of Parcel 21, which is a

degraded herbaceous upland dominated by sweet clover and quackgrass.

25

Parcel 22 is a cottonwood-dominated wooded area, with boxelder and green ash, and buckthorn in the

understory (No photo of Parcel 22).

Parcel 23 is an interesting mix of scrub-

shrub and emergent wetland, cottonwood-

dominated woods and degraded herbaceous

upland, following a west to east topographic

gradient. This is not an NWI-mapped

wetland. The wet swale along the west edge

of the parcel is dominated by cattails,

jewelweed and willow. Upslope to the east of

the swale is a narrow strip of cottonwood

and boxelder. Finally, further upslope the

parcel flattens out and is a dense patch of

sweet clover, burdock and ragweed.

Parcel 24 is a long narrow wooded corridor

immediately west of the MnDOT I-35E right-

of-way. The parcel slopes downward from

both the east and west edges to form a long,

linear depression. Green ash, boxelder and

buckthorn dominate the upland edges of the

parcel. As the elevation drops toward the

center, the dominant trees are cottonwood,

black willow (Salix nigra) and silver maple.

Dominant herbaceous species are Canada

goldenrod and stiff sunflower (Helianthus

rigida) on the upper slopes and cattail and

reed canary grass in the wetter center. There is a dense stand of sandbar willow at the north end of the

parcel.

26 vv

Table 2 Summary of Natural Areas

Parcel No. Vegetation Classification Description Quality Wetland Features Estimated

Slope Ownership Natural

Resource Management Opportunities

1 42310 - Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated

vegetation

Reed canary grass and cattail dominated wetland surrounded by buckthorn, boxelder,

and cottonwood species. C

Forested Wetland adjacent to the


1-5% Private Wetland Remove buckthorn understory to improve habitat

quality for birds.

Improve flood attenuation from surrounding impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs

2 62310 - Altered/non-native

grassland with sparse deciduous trees - temporarily flooded

Low lying flat parcel dominated by reed canary grass and other exotic invasive species. Cattail

wetlands on western edge. NN Emergent Wetland none Private

Wet Meadow/Wet

land

Increase vegetation diversity for pollinator and bird species

Manage reed canary and loosestrife

Prevent flooding to adjacent properties through BMPs

3 23112 - Long grasses with sparse

tree cover on upland soils Linear parcel dominated by smooth brome and burdock. Vegetation maintained to height <1’.

NN N/A 1 -5% Public Grassland Reduce management by Vegetating with aggressive native plants (Dogwood, Willow, Vibernum, etc.)

4 14112 - Pavement with 76 -90%

impervious cover

Wooded strip surrounded by industrial property. Natural area canopy dominated by cottonwood

with a highly degraded understory. NN Emergent Wetland 5-10% Public Woodland

Remove debris to improve understory vegetation.

Improve delineation between natural area and industrial property to reduce encroachment and compaction from surrounding industry


5 - 6 21310 - Upland soils with planted,

maintained or cultivated mixed coniferous/deciduous trees

Mixed coniferous/deciduous tree planting adjacent to the Gateway State Trail. Exotic forbs and grasses dominate with few native

mixed within.

C N/A 1 -5% Public Woodland/R

emnant Prairie

Manage invasive forbs and grasses.

Convert mowed turf areas along path with native grasses, forbs, and/or tree species.


vegetation

Cattail dominated wetland. Willow tamarack and buckthorn along edges.

D Emergent wetland with open water

10 – 20% around wetland

edge

Public Wetland Control exotic invasive species

8, 24 42310 - Altered/non-native

deciduous woodland - saturated

Linear depression dominated by cottonwood and cattail species along L’Orient Street.

Mowed turf edge around stormwater pond to the north.

C Emergent wetland with open water

5-10% along ditch

Private Woodland/W

etland Maintain wetland functions

9 61120 - Tall grass altered/non-

native dominated grassland

Open field along south edge of K-Mart parking lot. Native grass and forb species present.

Vegetation dominated by goldenrod and reed canary grass.

C N/A none Private Dry Prairie Connect bike trail along eastern edge


Restore into remnant prairie

10 ,16 42130 - Altered/non-native

deciduous woodland

Maintained power line corridor through center with early succession woodland species on the

edges. C N/A 5-10% Private Woodland

Use open area as a pocket park/picnic area for trail users



deciduous woodland

Early succession woodland species along road. South side of parcel slopes up to Maryland

Avenue. Slope dominated by smooth brome. Cattail and reed canary wetland along road.

D Emergent Wetland 5-10% Private Wetland/

Mesic Prairie


Manage exotic tree species to prevent encroachment into recently restored Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary

27 vv





deciduous woodland

Recently restored slope dominated by annual invasive spices. Slope has been planted with

oak and hackberry seedlings NA N/A 5 – 15% Public

Oak Savanna Control exotic species

13 -14 32170 - Altered/non-native

deciduous forest Mixed deciduous canopy with a densely

colonized buckthorn understory NN N/A 0 -15% Private Woodland

Remove Buckthorn Understory to improve habitat for bird species

Develop trail network to connect surrounding natural areas


deciduous woodland

Large cottonwood canopy with tall grass openings. Openings are a diverse mix of non-native and native forbs and tall grass species.

C N/A 0 – 5% Private Woodland/ Remnant

Prairie

Restore remnant prairie openings

Remove Buckthorn Understory to improve habitat for bird species

Develop trail network to connect surrounding natural areas

17 - 20 13144 13134 – Short grasses and

mixed trees with 26-75% impervious cover

Rail corridor dominated by non-native grass and forb species. Cottonwood and box elder

tree species throughout C N/A 0 – 5% Private

Woodland/ Remnant

Prairie

Convert abandoned rail line into recreational trail system. Connect to Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary.

Improve ecological patch corridor dynamics with surrounding natural areas

Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs

21 14113 - Buildings and pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Newly constructed stormwater pond along south side of W cottage Avenue. Site appeared

to have been recently seeded with native species. Situated along road and industrial

property.

C Open Water 0 – 10% Public Wetland/

Stormwater Pond

Control exotic species

Maintain wetland functions

22 - 23 14113 - Buildings and pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Wooded strip along south side of W cottage Avenue. Situated along road and industrial

property. C N/A 0 -15% Public Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious

surfaces with addition of BMPs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

18

20

21 22 23

19

17

16

8

24





12 42130 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland


oak and hackberry seedlings NA N/A 5 – 15% Public Oak Savanna

• Control exotic species

13 -14 32170 - Altered/non-native deciduous forest

Mixed deciduous canopy with a densely colonized buckthorn understory NN N/A 0 -15% Private Woodland

• Remove Buckthorn Understory to improve habitat for bird species

• Develop trail network to connect surrounding natural areas


Large cottonwood canopy with tall grass openings. Openings are a diverse mix of non-native and native forbes and tall grass species.


Prairie

• Restore remnant prairie openings • Remove Buckthorn Understory to improve habitat

for bird species • Develop trail network to connect surrounding

natural areas





Woodland/ Remnant

Prairie

• Convert abandoned rail line into recreational trail system. Connect to Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary.

• Improve ecological patch corridor dynamics with surrounding natural areas.

• Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs




property.


Stormwater Pond

• Control exotic species • Maintain wetland functions



property. C N/A 0 -15% Public • Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious


27 vv






vegetation





1-5% Private Wetland • Remove buckthorn understory to improve habitat

quality for birds. • Improve flood attenuation from surrounding

impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs





Wet Meadow/We

tland

• Increase vegetation diversity for pollinator and bird species.

• Manage reed canary and loosestrife • Prevent flooding to adjacent properties through

BMPs

3 23112 - Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

Linear parcel dominated by smooth brome and burdock. Vegetation maintained to height <1’.

NN N/A 1 -5% Public Grassland • Reduce management by Vegetating with aggressive native plants (Dogwood, Willow, Vibernum, etc.).

4 14112 - Pavement with 76 -90% impervious cover

Wooded strip surrounded by industrial property. Natural area canopy dominated by

cottonwood with a highly degraded understory.

NN Emergent Wetland 5-10% Public Woodland

• Remove debris to improve understory vegetation. • Improve delineation between natural area and

industrial property to reduce encroachment and compaction from surrounding industry.

• Improve flood attenuation from surrounding impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs




mixed within.


emnant Prairie

• Manage invasive forbs and grasses • Convert mowed turf areas along path with native

grasses, forbs, and/or tree species.


vegetation

Cattail dominated wetland. Willow tamarack and buckthorn along edges. D

Emergent wetland with open water


edge

Public Wetland • Control exotic invasive species






5-10% along ditch Private

Woodland/Wetland • Maintain wetland functions

9 61120 - Tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland



C N/A none Private Dry Prairie • Connect bike trail along eastern edge • Improve flood attenuation from surrounding

impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs • Restore into remnant prairie

10 ,16 42130 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland



• Use open area as a pocket park/picnic area for trail users



deciduous woodland




Mesic Prairie


• Manage exotic tree species to prevent encroachment into recently restored Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary

26 vv






vegetation





1-5% Private Wetland • Remove buckthorn understory to improve habitat

quality for birds. • Improve flood attenuation from surrounding

impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs





Wet Meadow/We

tland

• Increase vegetation diversity for pollinator and bird species.

• Manage reed canary and loosestrife • Prevent flooding to adjacent properties through

BMPs

3 23112 - Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

Linear parcel dominated by smooth brome and burdock. Vegetation maintained to height <1’.

NN N/A 1 -5% Public Grassland • Reduce management by Vegetating with aggressive native plants (Dogwood, Willow, Vibernum, etc.).

4 14112 - Pavement with 76 -90% impervious cover

Wooded strip surrounded by industrial property. Natural area canopy dominated by

cottonwood with a highly degraded understory.

NN Emergent Wetland 5-10% Public Woodland

• Remove debris to improve understory vegetation. • Improve delineation between natural area and

industrial property to reduce encroachment and compaction from surrounding industry.





mixed within.


emnant Prairie

• Manage invasive forbs and grasses • Convert mowed turf areas along path with native

grasses, forbs, and/or tree species.


vegetation

Cattail dominated wetland. Willow tamarack and buckthorn along edges. D

Emergent wetland with open water


edge

Public Wetland • Control exotic invasive species






5-10% along ditch Private

Woodland/Wetland • Maintain wetland functions

9 61120 - Tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland



C N/A none Private Dry Prairie • Connect bike trail along eastern edge • Improve flood attenuation from surrounding

impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs • Restore into remnant prairie

10 ,16 42130 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland



• Use open area as a pocket park/picnic area for trail users



deciduous woodland




Mesic Prairie


• Manage exotic tree species to prevent encroachment into recently restored Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary

26 vv






oak and hackberry seedlings NA N/A 5 – 15% Public Oak Savanna

• Control exotic species

13 -14 32170 - Altered/non-native deciduous forest

Mixed deciduous canopy with a densely colonized buckthorn understory NN N/A 0 -15% Private Woodland

• Remove Buckthorn Understory to improve habitat for bird species

• Develop trail network to connect surrounding natural areas


Large cottonwood canopy with tall grass openings. Openings are a diverse mix of non-native and native forbes and tall grass species.


Prairie

• Restore remnant prairie openings • Remove Buckthorn Understory to improve habitat

for bird species • Develop trail network to connect surrounding

natural areas





Woodland/ Remnant

Prairie

• Convert abandoned rail line into recreational trail system. Connect to Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary.

• Improve ecological patch corridor dynamics with surrounding natural areas.

• Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs




property.


Stormwater Pond

• Control exotic species • Maintain wetland functions



property. C N/A 0 -15% Public • Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious


27 vv

Buckthorn Removal

Primary Management Opportunities

Management OpportunitiesFigure 9 -

Maintain Wetland Function For Flood Attenuation

Develop Trail Network Connections

Restore Native Plant Community

Aerial Image Source: Bing Maps!;N

0 500 1,000250

Feet

29

4.0 Management Goals, Strategies and Opportunities

The NRI report is intended to present a qualitative and semi-quantitative assessment of natural resources

remaining within the project area. It is not intended to prescribe specific management actions for

developing, enhancing or preserving the identified natural resources in the District 6 project area.

However, this section of the NRI Report is designed to help consider the following three questions

regarding any potential actions taken to address natural resource management in the project area:.

1. Why do CRWD and the City want to manage natural resources in the area? What do CRWD and

the City hope to achieve?

2. How, in general terms, could CRWD and the City go about achieving its goals for natural

resources in the project area?

3. What specifically could be done and where to accomplish CRWD’s and the City’s goals?

The first question speaks to the need to develop management goals for the area. The second question is a

consideration of the broader means of achieving those goals. The answers to the last question are the

beginning of developing a roadmap for specific management actions that will incrementally achieve

CRWD’s and the City’s goals for the District 6 project area.

4.1 Management Goals

There are numerous potential opportunities for managing natural resources within the project area.

Management activities can be selected along a gradient from specific localized actions to broader area-

wide policies to address the desire to recognize and preserve natural resources in the project area. A

necessary first step in the selection of management activities is to consider and identify the goals of

natural resource management. Listed below, in no particular order, are several possible goals that may be

considered prior to enacting management activities.

Preservation and protection of open green space: A goal of management may be to simply

stop further degradation of the project area’s remaining natural features and protect open,

vegetated spaces.

Connectivity: Establish corridors of natural vegetation: Greenways, or corridors of open

vegetated space, provide ecological, aesthetic and recreational benefits. Moreover, there is an

established synergistic effect to connecting separate, isolated tracts of open green spaces.

Establishment of connections between natural resource elements within the project area would

also allow the continuation of the corridor into natural areas to the north and south of the site.

Wildlife habitat enhancement: The project area is in a moderately industrialized, highly

developed landscape bounded on the east by an interstate highway and on all other sides by

major city roads. In this setting, it is important to identify, preserve and enhance opportunities for

wildlife to move, forage, nest and generally survive and function. Specific management activities

can be implemented to meet the goal of sharing an intensely human-influenced space with

wildlife.

Improve pollinator habitat: This goal is a subset of the previous goal of wildlife enhancement,

but it is sufficiently important in the current context to identify it as a separate goal. Modern

urban settings are increasingly difficult for bees, butterflies and other pollinators to survive. Their

ability to survive in urban settings is important to many of our own food sources. Enhancement of

30

pollinator habitat is an achievable goal in the project area, with a high potential for engaging local

residents.

Passive and active recreation: Having natural spaces interspersed within the project area’s

residences and businesses would provide opportunities for observing and enjoying nature, and

walking, running or bicycling past native plant communities.

Enhancement of native/natural plant communities: In a number of locations around the

project area, the remnants of native plant communities and/or good-quality mixed native/non-

native communities are present but declining. These are areas that could return to a healthier,

self-sustaining condition with an assist in the form of specific management actions.

Control of invasive species: Many invasive species not only degrade native plant communities

and decrease species diversity, but they also have significant economic effects at both local and

regional scales. Management of invasive species is an important goal for any natural resource

management plan.

Engineered outlets to benefit and/or improve wetland ecological function: The natural

hydrology of the remnant wetlands has been altered, with development altering drainage areas

and changing the land cover (more impervious) which has altered the quality and quantity of

runoff or stormwater to each wetland. Some wetlands may not be receiving enough some runoff

to maintain their natural hydrology, while many may be receiving too much runoff, which could

cause the water level in the wetlands to bounce too high and for too a long of a duration,

negatively impacting wetland vegetation. Installation of engineered outlets that allow a more

natural bounce of water levels could protect the wetlands from increased quantity of runoff.

4.2 Management Strategies

Once a particular management goal has been set, consideration should be given to which management

strategies are best suited to attain the goal. Listed here are several strategies that can be employed for

meeting the natural resource management goals of the project area:

Seek landowner cooperation: many of the important pieces of the overall natural resource

picture in the project area lie on private property. By presenting the benefits of developing a

healthier natural resource base within the project area, landowners may be found that are willing

to change their current property management strategies to be more natural resource-friendly. For

example, a landowner may be willing to forgo mowing portions of turfgrass areas, and allow the

areas to be planted with natives. Engagement with landowners, particularly the

industrial/commercial landowners in the project area, is an important strategy for several of the

management goals listed above.

Educate and engage local residences: Similarly, enhancement of natural resources on a smaller,

localized scale can be achieved by educating the local residences and helping them understand

their roles in achieving the overall goals. Approximately one-quarter of the project area is

residential neighborhoods; this represents a unique opportunity for identifying locally-engaged

stewards of the area’s natural resources. Help people understand how to be effective natural

resource managers in their part of the project area. For example, the goal of enhancing pollinator

habitat is most likely best achieved by working with local residences who can provide the land

and the labor to improve pollinator habitat, and who would most enjoy the immediate aesthetic

benefits. Moreover, this is a strategy for which the specific tools are most likely already developed.

CRWD has existing educational materials and guides for residential natural resource management.

Strategic acquisitions and/or easements: Meeting the management goal of enhanced

connectivity of resources is all about the real estate. Specific properties could be identified for

31

outright acquisition, or for negotiation of conservation easements. (This report identifies several

properties in Section 4.3.6 Strategic Acquisitions/Easements).

Development of plant palettes for specific community types: CRWD and the City can have, on

hand, an overall plan for developing and enhancing native plant communities in specific habitats

and conditions. Rather than re-creating a planting list for every enhancement opportunity, CRWD

and the City can have a set of plant palettes for various desired community types, e.g., upland

prairie, wetland fringe, open woodland, etc., available for use as needed.

Creation of wildlife habitat structures: To support the goal of wildlife enhancement, it may be

necessary to research and learn techniques for creating appealing habitats for a range of wildlife

uses. In many instances, materials are readily available and/or already in place, and simply need

some adjustments or augmentations to be suitable habitat for birds, small mammals, reptiles,

amphibians, etc. Utilizable habitats can be created inexpensively, and should be part of the

management toolkit.

Policy development: Long-term preservation of natural resources may require re-visiting and

potentially revising City policy and regulations regarding natural resources.

Engineered stormwater outlets: Installation of engineered outlets connected to the local

stormsewer system that allow a more natural bounce of water levels could protect the wetlands

from increased quantity of runoff, particularly in Parcels 1, 2, 7, 21, 23 and 24.

4.3 Specific Management Opportunities

Listed below is a set of specific management options and opportunities, ranging from the simple to the

complex, the practical to the theoretical, and the short-term to the long-term. They have been roughly

divided into the type and/or purpose of management activity suggested, and for that reason there is

some overlap. Some management suggestions reference the locations of parcels investigated in the field;

for these see Figure 7 and 9 and Table 2. This is a comprehensive palette of potential management

possibilities for the District 6 project area. Many of these suggested actions may require coordination with

private landowners.

4.3.1 Invasive Removal and Clean-ups

Remove Japanese knotweed along southwest side of railroad tracks in Parcel 17. Japanese

knotweed can be progressively eradicated by mowing around the beginning of June, and then

applying glyphosate (Roundup) as the plant grows back. Other more powerful herbicides are also

available.

Manage invasive forbs and grasses along the Gateway State Trail, starting at L’Orient Street and

continuing generally south to Maryland Avenue.

Remove Japanese knotweed from the southwest edge of Parcel 7. Consider purple loosestrife

control in the wetland at Parcel 7.

Clean up concrete and soil piles in Parcel 11.

Remove metal and wood debris from Parcel 4. Cut buckthorn understory.

Install fencing or other property line delineation at the toe of the slope northeast of the Trout

Brook Nature Preserve Visitors Area parking lot to better define the property edge and prevent

encroachment of vehicles from the auto salvage yard.

Remove buckthorn in wooded areas, especially in the north end of Parcel 1 (Cottage Avenue

wetland).

Remove buckthorn in the southeast corner of the wetland at the corner of Arlington Avenue and

Trout Brook Circle (Parcel 2).

32

4.3.2 Native Plant Community Enhancements

Coordinate with the landowners of Parcel 9 (K-Mart location) to allow management of the

remnant prairie near the south end of the parking lot. A prescribed burn would control the non-

native species present and help the prairie species. Also, coordinate with the K-Mart property

maintenance staff to reduce the mowed area south of the parking lot and avoid mowing into the

prairie grasses.

Coordinate with property management at the office building north of Parcel 8 to expand the

vegetated buffer around the stormwater pond, and to plant additional upland native plants.

Coordinate with the designer and installation contractor of the restoration planting at the Trout

Brook Nature Preserve Visitors Area parking lot to ensure that there is follow-up and maintenance

on the planting, and correction of erosion on the slope.

Convert all, or at least the adjacent 15 feet, of the mowed turfgrass area along the southeast side

of the Gateway State Trail in Parcel 6 to native grasses, forbs and/or trees.

Design prairie or other native plant community species lists and planting plans, at various scales

and configurations, for all vacant or non-native dominated publicly-owned parcels.

4.3.3 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement

Develop basic information materials for local homeowners to encourage planting of native

perennial forb and shrub species beneficial to bees and other pollinators, and butterflies.

Suggested species could include milkweed, blazing star, snowberry, asters, etc. Stress to

homeowners the low-maintenance qualities of these plants, and their importance to insect

pollinators.

Enhance Parcel 4 for wildlife utilization and to improve the quality and connectivity of the parcel

to Parcel 7 to the south and to open green spaces to the north. Cut buckthorn and remove debris.

Wildlife habitat structures could be considered for the wetland edges and upland areas in

Parcel 7.

Clear buckthorn in Parcels 22 and 23 to improve woodland bird habitat.

Consider felling dying trees in the wetland at the corner of Arlington Avenue and Trout Brook

Circle (Parcel 2) to create wildlife habitat. Leave larger standing dead trees for cavity-nesting bird

habitat.

4.3.4 Connectivity Enhancements

Clean up, eradicate non-natives, and improve Parcels 3 and 4. This would provide a continuous

vegetated corridor from Arlington Avenue to Parcel 7 (a publicly-owned parcel).

Continue the re-vegetation and native plant community enhancement that has been started

northeast of the Trout Brook Nature Preserve Visitors Area parking lot to make it contiguous with

the wooded area between the south edge of the Auto Auction auto salvage yard and Maryland

Avenue. This would help improve connectivity of vegetated open spaces at the southeast end of

the project area and continuing south under Maryland Avenue to Trout Brook Nature Preserve.

4.3.5 Preservation Target Parcels

The following parcels are priority areas for preservation:

Parcel 1 and all parcels that are part of the Cottage Avenue wetland. This is probably the most

ecologically-valuable natural resource in the project area. If it cannot be acquired (see below),

then policy should be to strictly prohibit development or further degradation of the wetland.

33

Similarly, if the forested portions of Parcels 13, 14 and 15 cannot be acquired, coordination could

be performed with the landowners to keep these wooded areas preserved. These parcels are

critical to maintaining a continuous greenway corridor through the project area.

Parcel 7 is publicly owned, and could provide passive recreation and wildlife habitat opportunities.

Parcels 22 and 23 are publicly-owned and provide good wildlife habitat, despite their relative

isolation.

Parcel 7 could be developed into a small park/rest stop along the Gateway State Trail.

Parcel 19, the abandoned railroad line, has scattered prairie grass communities along the top of

the embankment that could be maintained and preserved.

4.3.6 Strategic Acquisitions/Easements

Begin acquisitions or conservation easement negotiations for parcels or portions of parcels along

the entire Gateway State Trail as it passes through the project area.

Contact landowners to acquire the wooded portions of Parcels 13, 14 and 15. If acquired and

preserved, these three parcels, along with the Trout Brook Nature Preserve Information Area to

the south and the abandoned railroad line to the north, would establish a continuous greenway

corridor through the project area and into open green space both south and north of the site.

Acquire Parcel 1 and all parcels that are part of the Cottage Avenue wetland.

Develop the Parcels 10 & 16 area along the Gateway State Trail south of Maryland Avenue into a

“pocket park.” These are privately-owned parcels, and could be a strategic acquisition for the City.

The site has access from the trail along the west and from L’Orient Street to the east. The site

would provide passive recreation opportunities along the trail, and could be a nice rest stop. A

simple first step would be to clean out weeds and underbrush.

4.3.7 Other Natural Resource Management Actions

Check inflow/outflow through the wetland at the corner of Arlington Avenue and Trout Brook

Circle (Parcel 2). The wetland tends to flow over the curb onto Trout Brook Circle.

Develop hydrologic modeling of wetlands that may have stormwater and flooding concerns

(Parcels 1, 2, 7, 21, 23 and 24) and determine whether engineered outlets connected to the local

stormsewer system that allow a more natural bounce of water levels would provide benefit.

34

5.0 References

Bluestem Heritage Group. 2013. History of the Trout Brook Valley. St. Paul, MN.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). 2015. Minnesota Noxious Weeds. URL:

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/badplants/noxiouslist.aspx. Accessed February 3, 2015.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). 2013. East-Central Update of USFWS NWI

Mapping. MnDNR

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/badplants/noxiouslist.aspx

district 6 natural resource inventory

Documents