january 15, 2015 cac meeting packet

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

Citizen Advisory Committee

7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 14, 2015 – Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park

Drive, Suite 4, Saint Paul, MN 55108

Agenda

7:00 I) Welcome, Announcements and Updates – Introductions

7:05 II) Public Comment for issues not on the Agenda (3 minutes per person)

7:08 III) Approval of the Agenda

7:09 IV) Approval of Minutes

A) Approval of the December 10, 2014 Minutes

7:10 V) District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations

A) 2014 Fish Survey, Britta Suppes, Monitoring Program Coordinator

B) District 6 Natural Resources Inventory, Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering

8:30 VI) CAC Initiatives

A) 2014 Watershed Stewards Awards Wrap Up

B) 2015 CAC Recruitment

8:35 VII) Project and Program Updates

A) 2015 – A Look Ahead

8:50 VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55 IX) Discussion A) New & Old Issues

B) CAC Observer for December 17th and January 7th, 2015 Board of Managers Meetings

C) January 21st CAC Agenda Overview

D) 2015 Meeting Schedule

9:00 X) Adjourn

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2015\January 14, 2015 CAC Agenda.docx

Materials

Enclosed

1

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting

Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present:

David Arbeit

Bill Barton

Mike MacDonald

Ted McCaslin

Rick Sanders

Kathryn Swanson

Michelle Ulrich

Gwen Willems

Members absent: Pat Byrne, w/notice

Richard Weil, w/notice

Steve Duerre

Others Present:

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Mike Thienes, Board Manager

Mae Davenport, University of

Minnesota

Vanessa Perry, University of

Minnesota

Nicole Soderholm, guest of Gwen

Willems

Mike Rausch, Midway Resident

Welcome, Announcements, and Updates

Mr. Mike MacDonald opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m with introductions.

Mr. MacDonald requested any announcements. There were no announcements.

Public Comments

Mr. Mike Rausch, a resident from the Midway area, shared his interest in having rain gardens installed in his

neighborhood. Mr. Rausch requested additional information on obtaining a grant to have raingardens built in

his neighborhood. Administrator Doneux explained that the most expensive part of a rain garden project is

the curb cut. CRWD tries to work with the City of St. Paul at the planning phase when reconstructing streets

and sidewalks to help keep the disruption and cost of the rain gardens down.

Approval of Agenda

Ms. Willems asked for any additions or changes to the Agenda. No additions or changes were made.

CAC 14-082 Motion: To approve the CAC December 10, 2014, agenda.

Arbeit/Barton

Unanimously approved

Approval of the November 12, 2014 CAC Minutes

Mr. MacDonald requested any changes or corrections to the minutes. Corrections were noted regarding

members that were marked absent without notice.

Draft

“Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

2

CAC 14-083 Motion: To approve the CAC November 12, 2014 CAC Minutes with changes.

Willems/Arbeit


District Initiatives

A) Community Capacity Assessment, University of Minnesota (Mae Davenport and Vanessa

Perry)

Ms. Davenport reviewed that in the fall of 2013, CRWD began a partnership with Ramsey Washington

Metro Watershed District and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization to study individual actions

and behaviors as well as public decision making within the framework of a community’s actual ability and

power – its capacity – to engage in clean water behaviors. This joint watershed Community Capacity Study

has been led by Professor Mae Davenport of University of Minnesota Department of Forestry.

Ms. Perry reviewed that the study has included interviews, focus groups and a mail survey. Twenty

interviews with business and community leaders along the Green Line and on Saint Paul’s East Side have

been completed. Ms. Perry provided a presentation summary of interview results and preliminary analysis of

behavior drivers and constraints, values and beliefs, and perceptions of clean water programs.

Forthcoming deliverables are three focus groups, a mail survey, a one-year progress report in early 2015 and

a final technical report in late 2015 outlining recommendations for tailoring CRWD’s education,

communication and outreach programming.

No Action was requested.

B) Highland Ravine Stabilization Project Update (Eleria)

Ms. Eleria reviewed that in 2007 issues in the Highland Ravine area were first addressed to Capitol Region

Watershed. In 2010 CRWD commenced its work in the area with a feasibility study that determined the

extent and causes of erosion in the ravine and flooding to downstream properties. The feasibility study also

identified strategies to address these water-related issues, which included rock grade control structures, side

slope stabilization measures, and a stormwater pond. In early 2012, CRWD received a State Clean Water

Fund (CWF) Grant of $150,000 to design and construct ravine stabilization measures in specific two areas of

Highland Ravine. In late 2012, CRWD hired Wenck Associates to design and engineer the ravine

stabilization project and provide construction engineering services. The Board awarded the construction

project in May 2014 to Sunram Construction based on its bid of $312,622, the lowest of three bids received.

Construction of the Highland Ravine Stabilization Project commenced on September 15, 2014. Anticipated

to be completed in one month. An additional month was needed to finish the project due to rain, active

groundwater seepage in both ravine areas, and side slope instability and slumping. The major construction

activities included installation of rock grade control structures in the ravine channels, placement of brush

bundles and biologs on the side slopes, construction of stormwater pond in Ravine 1, replacement of the

City’s sanitary sewer, and restoration of the disturbed construction areas.

Ms. Eleria reviewed that the City of Saint Paul requested that CRWD conduct work in their right-of-way to

improve access to the City’s sanitary and storm sewer systems. The work includes clearing and grubbing a

16-foot wide and 375-foot long area in City right-of-way behind Deer Park Townhome Association and


3

modifying the City access route between the Deer Park townhomes that includes 2 feet of recycled asphalt

below the surface. The City has approved Sunram’s cost estimate and will reimburse CRWD for this

additional work.

No Action was requested.

C) Recommendations for 2015 CAC Members

The Board of Managers must annually appoint the Citizen Advisory Committee members. In order to maintain

an orderly CAC roster and fully comply with state statute the Citizen’s Advisory Committee will submit a

recommended roster to the Board of Managers who will appoint CAC members for 2015 at the CRWD Annual

Meeting on December 17, 2014.

CAC 14-084 Motion: Recommend the Board of Managers reappoint CAC members through December

2015.

David Arbeit, 1384 East Como Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55117

William Barton, 533 Cretin Ave South, St. Paul MN 55116

Pat Byrne, 243 S Lexington Pkwy St. Paul, MN 55104

Steven Duerre, 76 Bates Street, St. Paul, MN 55106

Michael MacDonald, 1391 Almond Ave., St. Paul MN 55108

Ted McCaslin, 1675 Lilac Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118

Rick Sanders, 363 S. McCarrons Blvd., Roseville, MN 55113

Kathryn Swanson, 2798 16th Terrence NW, New Brighton, MN 55112

Michelle Ulrich, 1561 Lincoln Ave., St Paul MN 55105

Richard Weil, 25 Charles Ave, St. Paul, MN 55103

Gwen Willems, 1880 Tatum Street Falcon Heights MN 55113

Barton/Ulrich


CAC Initiatives

A) CAC Recruitment Update

The CAC discussed continuing efforts to recruit additional members. One person of interest has contacted the

office. Ms. Nicole Soderholm, a guest of Gwen Willems, was in attendance interested in joining the CAC. Ms.

Soderholm lives in the Capitol Region Watershed District and works as a BMP/Construction site inspector for

Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District.

B) 2014 Recognition Program Update

Administrator Doneux provided an overview of the Recognition Program agenda. The awards program will

begin at 6:00. The Year in Review will be included. Mike MacDonald and David Arbeit will co-host and

present the Watershed Steward Awards. Mr. MacDonald encouraged members of the CAC to attend the

program. Ms. Swanson suggested that a certificate be passed out to the kids from Urban Roots.


4

Project and Program Updates

A) Partner Grants Update

Administrator Doneux reviewed that at the October 1, 2014 Board Meeting the Board commented on and

approved the 2015 Partner Grant Application form and distribution list. Board Managers, Thienes and Texer

were appointed to the Partner Grant Review Committee, CAC members Michelle Ulrich and Kathryn Swanson

were appointed at the October 10, 2014 CAC meeting.

The District received 14 Partner Grant applications during the application period of October 2 - November 7,

2014. Staff reviewed all applications and made preliminary recommendations.

The 2015 Partner Grants budget is $75,000. On November 18, the Partner Grant Review Committee reviewed

2015 CRWD Partner Grant applications and made recommendations. Some applications were not recommended

for funding because of a weaker connection to CRWD’s stormwater improvement goals as expressed in the

2014-15 Education and Outreach Plan. It was recommended that the Willow Reserve Cleanup project be funded

through the Wetland Restoration budget and that CRWD provide FMR a $3,500 sponsorship in lieu of funding

#12 FMR – Landscape for the River Community Workshops.

B) Special Grants Update

Administrator Doneux reviewed the 2015 Special Grants Program in place of Mr. Zwonitzer. For the past

several years the District has budgeted funds for budget fund 440 Special Projects and Grants. The District

typically sets a preliminary budget amount and then solicits applications for projects to fund. Applications

for 2015 Special Grant funds were due October 10, 2014.

CRWD received 12 project applications totaling $1.67 million. Approximately $550,000 is budgeted in 2015

for the program. Applications were reviewed by staff and a Special Grants Committee made up of two CAC

members, Richard Weil and Gwen Willems and Board Managers Shirley Reider and Mike Theines. The

committee has met to discuss the projects and developed a funding recommendation for the Board of

Managers. The Board of Managers approved the Special Grants at the December 3, 2014 meeting.

Administrator Doneux thanked the committee for their input.

CAC Observer Update

Mr. Duerre attended the November 19th, 2014 Board of Managers Meeting. Manager Mike Thienes provided

an update that Ms. Perry from the University of Minnesota was in attendance. Mr. Perry provided an update

on the Community Capacity Study, a joint study with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and

Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. The purpose of the study is to gather information on the

perceptions of clean waters. The Board of Managers reviewed the Special Grants. Manager Thienes

provided an update on a MAWD resolution that was approved at the annual meeting for a legislative agenda

to be provided to members.

Discussion –

A) New & Old Issues

No new or old business.


5

B) Identify CAC Observer for the December 17th and January 7th Board of Managers Meetings.

Most of the CAC should be in attendance of the December 17th meeting. Ms. Kathryn Swanson plans to

attend the January 7th meeting.

C) January 14th CAC Agenda Overview

The 2014 Fish Survey and Stewardship Grants will be reviewed along with an update on the Eustis Street

Feasibility Study.

D) 2015 Meeting Schedule

Adjourn –

CAC 14-085 Motion: To adjourn.

Arbeit/Barton


The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Sylvander

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2014\December 10, 2014 Draft Minutes.doc


DATE: January 8, 2015

TO: CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee

FROM: Britta Suppes, Monitoring Coordinator

RE: 2014 Fish Surveys: Como and Little Crosby Lakes

Background

In 2013, CRWD contracted Wenck Associates, Inc. to complete a statistical analysis of CRWD lake data

to determine if any water quality trends exist and what factors could be causing these trends. One major

recommendation from the report was to increase monitoring of biological data, as many of these

parameters (aquatic vegetation, zooplankton and phytoplankton abundance, and fish populations) could

be having an effect which cannot be determined by examining chemical and physical data alone. By

obtaining data on biological parameters that have not been monitored in the past or have been monitored

infrequently, a better picture of what is happening within the District’s lakes can be obtained.

At the April 9th, 2014 CAC meeting, the CAC members approved the Monitoring Program Review and

2014-2016 Recommendations, including Recommendation 14: Enhance lake monitoring and conduct a

more complete analysis. Also at the April 16th, 2014 Board meeting, the Managers reviewed the Enhanced

Lake Biological Monitoring Work Plan, which included initiating annual fisheries surveys. The primary

goal of this expanded monitoring is to enhance our understanding of how the biological, chemical, and

physical parameters of a lake interact to shape lake water quality to better inform in-lake management

decisions.

Project Overview

In June 2014, the District contracted Wenck Associates, Inc. to conduct fish surveys on Como and Little

Crosby Lakes during the month of August as part of the program’s expanded monitoring goals. Wenck

obtained a permit from the DNR to conduct both trap and gill net surveys. Como Lake was surveyed using

8 trap nets and two gill nets over the course of three days (4 trap nets/one gill net per day, repeated two

days in a row). Little Crosby Lake was surveyed using 4 trap nets and one gill net in two days. Fish

collected during the surveys were identified, weighed, and measured. All data was analyzed and compiled

into a report produced by Wenck staff, where data was compared to previous DNR fish survey data (where

applicable). CRWD staff is in the process of incorporating this information into its annual lakes report.

Requested Action

Provide review and comment.

enc: 2014 Fish Surveys: Como and Little Crosby Lakes

W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\0 Projects\Lakes Biological Monitoring\Fish Surveys\CAC Meeting_1-14-

2015\FishSurveysMemo_CACPacket_010815.docx

January 14, 2015

CAC Meeting

V. A). 2014 Fish Surveys

(Suppes)

TITLE OF REPORT Date of Report

2014 Fish Surveys: Como and Little Crosby Lakes

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN Prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. September 2014

i

October 2014

Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1

2.0 FISH MONITORING METHODS .................................................................................................3

3.0 PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................5

TABLES

Table 1: Como Lake trap and gill net survey results ..................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Comparison of Como Lake results from CRWD 2014 survey and DNR 2011 survey ...................... 6

Table 3: Species catch information for Como Lake ....................................................................................... 7

Table 4: Little Crosby Lake trap and gill net survey results........................................................................... 9

Table 5: Species breakdown from Little Crosby Lake survey ........................................................................ 9

FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Location Map

Figure 2: Como Lake Fish Monitoring Locations

Figure 3: Little Crosby Lake Fish Monitoring Locations

APPENDICES

Appendix A: DNR Survey Permit No: 19909 Appendix B: Como Lake Field Photos Appendix C: Little Crosby Lake Field Photos

1

October 2014

1.0 Project Introduction

The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD or District) is located in Ramsey County, Minnesota. The

District covers over 40 square miles in portions of five cities. The CRWD is tasked with monitoring and

maintaining the water quality of the water resources within the district boundary which includes

numerous streams and several lakes. All water bodies within the district ultimately drain to the

Mississippi River. There are five lakes within the district boundary, which includes Loeb Lake, Como Lake,

Crosby Lake, Little Crosby Lake and Lake McCarrons. Fish populations from these lakes are monitored by

the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The lakes are monitored on a five-year

rotational basis with a subset of lakes monitored each year, which is the typical practice of the DNR both

across the state and within the CRWD. In 2014, the DNR conducted fish monitoring in Crosby Lake, Loeb

Lake and Lake McCarrons. The CRWD contracted Wenck Associates (Wenck) to complete the fish

monitoring on two additional lakes in the District in 2014, Como Lake and Little Crosby Lake. The goal of

the fish monitoring program is to analyze the fish community in conjunction with other lake data sets,

including water quality and aquatic vegetation in an effort to track lake health and annual patterns. The

two lakes monitored by Wenck are both located within the City of St Paul, with Como Lake in the north-

central part of the District and Little Crosby Lake in the southwest corner (Figure 1). A brief description

of the two lakes sampled in 2014 is provided.

Como Lake

Como Lake is a shallow lake that is 68 acres in size and located in the City of St. Paul within Como

Regional Park. The maximum depth of the lake is approximately 15 feet with an average depth around

seven feet. Water clarity is relatively low within Como Lake, with transparency depths less than one

meter much of the summer. The lake is part of the DNR Fishing in the Neighborhood (FIN) program

which includes fish stocking to create recreational fishing opportunities in urban/metro lakes around the

Twin Cities. A variety of species have been stocked in Como Lake over the past ten years, including

bluegill, channel catfish, largemouth bass, walleye and yellow perch. The fish community was last

assessed by the DNR in 2011. The primary management species within Como Lake are bluegill sunfish

and channel catfish.

Little Crosby Lake

Little Crosby Lake is a small basin, approximately 10 acres in size that lies to the southwest of the main

Crosby Lake basin. The lakes are connected by a small channel that flows through a wetland. Both lakes

are within the Crosby Farm Park in the City of St Paul, which lies within the Mississippi River flood plain.

Due to their close proximity to the Mississippi River, both the main Crosby Lake basin and Little Crosby

Lake can become flooded by the river during high flows, which can connect the two basins. Little Crosby

2

October 2014

Lake is shallow along the shore but has a very deep hole over 25 feet in the southwest corner. Detailed

lake bathymetry data is not available. The fish community in Little Crosby Lake is not monitored by DNR,

with current assessments only being conducted in the main Crosby Lake basin. The DNR Lakefinder

website does not list a primary management species for Crosby Lake but the lake includes species such

as bluegill, black crappie, black bullhead and northern pike.

3

October 2014

2.0 Fish Monitoring Methods

In order to conduct fish surveys in lakes or streams within waters of the State in Minnesota, a permit

from the DNR is required. A survey permit request was submitted to the DNR by Wenck in July 2014,

with the request to cover both trap and gill net surveys in both Como and Little Crosby Lakes. The Permit

was issued to Wenck as Special Permit Number 19909 (Appendix A) and requires that fish community

data collected during the surveys be submitted to the DNR. Data from this project will be submitted as

required by the terms of the permit.

The DNR has established standard methods for conducting fish community surveys. In most lakes in

Minnesota the assessments include a combination of trap nets and gill nets. Both of these sampling

methods are considered “passive gear” where the nets are placed into the water and the fish swim into

them and become trapped or entangled. Standard or routine fish community assessments due not

include “active” survey methods such as benthic trawls or electrofishing, however special assessments

that include electrofishing are sometimes conducted in certain lakes.

Trap nets are a near-shore gear that are actually anchored on shore and then set perpendicular to the

shore, typically in water from three to six feet deep. A trap net includes a 50 ft. long lead net that is

anchored to the shore and connects into two, 4 ft. by 6 ft. frames. The frames include a throat that

direct fish into a series of hoops, with ½ inch mesh covering the frame and hoops. The fish follow the

lead net into the frames; pass through the throat and become trapped in the hoops, without being able

to escape. Most of the fish collected by the trap net are alive when the net is retrieved and can be

released back into the lake. The main species targeted by trap nets include bluegills (and other sunfish),

crappies and bullheads.

The DNR uses an experimental gill net for lake surveys, which is a 6ft. deep net that is 250 ft. long

consisting of five panels each 50 ft. in length. Each 50 ft. panel has a different mesh size ranging from 1.5

inches up to 3.5 inches. A fish swims into the mesh of the gill net and becomes entangled, typically by

their gills but also potentially by their fins or spines. The different mesh sizes help to catch fish of

different sizes. Gill nets are typically set in water that is at least nine feet deep. Fish mortality with gill

nets is very high, with most fish expiring prior to retrieving the net. The area of the lake that is surveyed

by an individual gill net is small so the impact to fish populations from gill net mortality is small. The

target species sampled by gill nets include northern pike, walleye and yellow perch; however, gill nets

are effective at collecting other species including bullheads and catfish.

The two main DNR sampling gears, trap nets and gill nets, were used for the CRWD fish monitoring on

Como and Little Crosby Lakes in 2014. The number of both trap and gill nets set (or deployed) for a lake

4

October 2014

fish assessment is dependent on lake size (i.e. large lakes include more total net locations than smaller

lakes). For Como Lake, all nets were deployed at established DNR monitoring locations which included

eight trap net locations and two gill net locations (Figure 2), which is a typical number of net locations

for lakes less than 100 acres in size. For Little Crosby Lake there were no previously established

monitoring locations, so the nets were distributed across the basin to sample representative areas of

the lake. Due to the small size of the basin, the number of nets was reduced compared to Como Lake,

with four trap nets and one gill net deployed in Little Crosby Lake (Figure 3). Both trap and gill nets were

set one day and then retrieved the following day, after being allowed to “soak” overnight. Trap nets

were anchored on shore as described above, while gill nets were set out in the open water of each lake,

held in place with boat anchors and large buoys. After being deployed when a net was retrieved the

following day, all fish we removed from the net and placed into tubs. Each fish was identified, weighed

and measured. Fish that were alive were released back into the lake. Dead fish were also placed back

into the lake (after puncturing their swim bladder), which were then likely consumed by turtles. The

depth, substrate and location of each net were recorded. Field photos from Como Lake and Little Crosby

Lake are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.

All equipment used during surveying was dried out and cleaned in between lake sampling efforts so as

not to transfer any aquatic invasive species between lakes. While neither Como nor Little Crosby Lake

are on the DNR Infested Waters List, steps for cleaning equipment after being on an infested water were

followed in order to minimize the chances of transferring any undesirable plants (e.g. Curly-leaf

pondweed) to other area lakes.

5

October 2014

3.0 Project Results and Discussion

Fish monitoring was conducted over three days in August from the 4th through the 6th in Como Lake. In

Little Crosby Lake the fish monitoring was conducted over two days, August 11th and 12th. A summary of

the results from each lake is provided.

Como Lake

Fish monitoring in Como Lake included eight trap net sets and two gill net sets (Figure 2). Water depth

for trap nets where the hoops were set ranged from as shallow as two feet at Location 5 to as deep as

five feet at Locations 2, 3, 4 and 9 (Table 1). The most common substrate at the trap net locations was

some combination of sand, silt and muck. There were some locations with firm sand-silt or sand-gravel

substrates. In some trap net locations, the submerged aquatic vegetation was very think around the lead

line of the net as well as the trap frames and hoops, with the main species being coontail. Gill nets were

set in deep water in the open portions of the lake. There was no submerged vegetation present at either

gill net location. Gill net Location 1 was set with the smallest mesh to the north in the shallower depth of

7.5 feet, and the net was then deployed to the south with the largest mesh in the deeper water at 10

feet (Table 1). Gill net Location 2 was set in the same orientation as Location 1 with the small mesh to

the north and the large mesh to the south. However, this orientation placed the small mesh in the

deepest water at 11.5 feet and the larger mesh in the shallow water at 8.5 feet.

Table 1: Como Lake trap and gill net survey results

Location Depth Substrate Northing Easting Set Retrieved Total Fish

Trap Net 1 2–4 ft. Muck N 44 58' 40.2” W 93 08’ 14.6” 08/05/14 08/06/14 30

Trap Net 2 3–5 ft. Sand/Gravel N 44 58’ 50.5” W 93 08’ 24.6” 08/04/14 08/05/14 47

Trap Net 3 5 ft. Sand/Gravel N 44 58' 56.8” W 93 08' 26.5” 08/04/14 08/05/14 20

Trap Net 4 3–5 ft. Sand/Silt/Muck N 44 58' 59.1” W 93 08' 34.9” 08/04/14 08/05/14 5

Trap Net 5 2 ft. Sand N 44 58' 49.2” W 93 08' 36.6” 08/05/14 08/06/14 6

Trap Net 6 2–4 ft. Sand/Silt/Muck N 44 58' 34.2” W 93 08' 16.5” 08/05/14 08/06/14 29

Trap Net 7 2–4 ft. Sand/Silt/Muck N 44 58' 43.3'” W 93 08' 33.7” 08/05/14 08/06/14 10

Trap Net 9 3–5 ft. Sand/Silt N 45 59' 02.2” W 93 08' 27.9” 08/04/14 08/05/14 2

Gill Net 1 7.5–10 ft. Silt/Muck N 44 58’ 53.4” W 93 08 29.8” 08/04/14 08/05/14 48

Gill Net 2 8.5–11.5 ft. Silt/Muck N 44 58’ 42.0” W 93 08’ 24.8” 08/05/14 08/06/14 35

There were a total of 232 fish collected in Como Lake during the survey. The total fish collected in trap

nets ranged from two to 47, while total fish collected in each gill net ranged from 34 to 48 (Table 1).

There were 10 species collected from Como Lake. Black Crappies were the most numerous fish

collected, totaling 145 fish combined between trap nets and gill nets, accounting for 62 percent of the

total catch (Table 2). All other species collected comprised less than ten percent of the total catch. There

6

October 2014

were similar numbers of golden shiners, northern pike, black bullhead and yellow perch collected, each

totaling between 14 and 19 individuals and accounting for between six and eight percent to the

combined total catch (Table 2). There were less than ten individuals collected for the remaining five

species with each accounting for one to three percent of the combined total catch, including seven

bluegills, seven pumpkinseed, six walleyes, three channel catfish and one yellow bullhead. In general,

the nets effectively collected the main target species for each gear type with the majority of the bluegill,

crappies and pumpkinseeds collected in trap nets and the majority of black bullheads, channel catfish,

golden shiner, northern pike, walleyes and yellow perch collected by the gill nets.

The total combined catch in Como Lake was significantly less than the total catch from the last DNR

survey in 2011 where 736 fish were collected (Table 2). While the total catch in 2014 was much lower,

the total number of species was very similar between the two surveys, with ten species collected in

2014 and 11 species collected in 2011 (Table 2). The only species that was not collected in 2014 that was

present in the 2011 survey were white suckers. Most species were collected in lower numbers in 2014

as compared to 2011, with the largest difference being for bluegills where only seven were collected in

2014 compared to 237 in 2011. Golden shiner was the only species collected in higher numbers in 2014

compared to 2011. Essentially the same numbers of walleyes were collected during the 2014 and 2011

surveys (six compared to five) and yellow perch were collected in similar numbers during both surveys

(14 in 2014; 16 in 2011).

Table 2: Comparison of Como Lake results from CRWD 2014 survey and DNR 2011 survey

Species DNR - 2011 CRWD – 2014

Total Catch Percent of Catch Total Catch Percent of Catch

Black Bullhead 71 9.6% 14 6.0%

Black Crappie 272 37.0% 145 62.5%

Bluegill 237 32.2% 7 3.0%

Channel Catfish 19 2.6% 3 1.3%

Golden Shiner 2 0.3% 19 8.2%

Northern Pike 49 6.7% 16 6.9%

Pumpkinseed 29 3.9% 7 3.0%

Walleye 5 0.7% 6 2.6%

White Sucker 3 0.4% -- --

Yellow Perch 16 2.2% 14 6.0%

Yellow Bullhead 33 4.5% 1 0.4%

Total 736 100.0% 232 100.0%

When removing the large discrepancy between the bluegill catch from the overall total catch, several

species collected in 2014 comprised similar percentages of the total catch compared to 2011, such as

northern pike, black bullheads, pumpkinseed and channel catfish. The percentage of black crappies

collected in 2014 appears much higher than in 2011, but again if the bluegill catch were removed,

crappies would comprise a similar percent of the total catch between the two surveys. Stated another

7

October 2014

way, the 2014 total catch was lower than 2011 but the total species pool was very similar and the

percentage each species comprised of the total catch was also similar.

Table 3: Species catch information for Como Lake

Species* Sample Gear Total Fish Number Fish/Net Avg. Length Avg. Weight

Black Bullhead Trap Net 0 0.0 0.0 0

Gill Net 14 7.0 9.5 0.56

Black Crappie Trap Net 123 15.4 6.7 0.15

Gill Net 22 11.5 6.6 0.16

Bluegill Trap Net 7 0.8 6.1 0.20

Gill Net 0 0.0 0.0 0

Channel Catfish Trap Net 0 0.0 0.0 0

Gill Net 3 1.5 13.2 1.21

Golden Shiner Trap Net 6 0.8 6.2 0.10

Gill Net 13 6.5 6.9 0.17

Northern Pike Trap Net 4 0.5 14.7 1.56

Gill Net 12 6.0 26.8 5.01

Pumpkinseed Trap Net 7 0.9 5.4 0.15

Gill Net 0 0.0 0.0 0

Walleye Trap Net 0 0.0 0.0 0

Gill Net 6 3.0 18.7 2.24

Yellow Perch Trap Net 1 0.1 8.1 0.27

Gill Net 13 6.0 8.6 0.35

* : only one yellow bullhead was collected; it was partially eaten by a turtle so no length/weight data was taken.

Average lengths and weights of each species are presented in Table 3. There were some fish collected in

both trap and gill nets that were partially consumed by turtles or some other animal. These partial fish

were counted in the total number of fish collected (presented in Tables 1 -3) but were not measured for

length or weight. Therefore the average weights and lengths are calculated based on whole, intact fish

only. The black crappies collected appeared to all be from the same year class, with very little variation

in length and weights of the collected fish. These fish would be considered small in terms of “keepable”

size fish for anglers; however they were still large enough to be “catchable”. The bluegills and yellow

perch were similar to the black crappies, in the fish were large enough to be caught but not necessarily

of a quality size to be kept by anglers. The northern pike collected were large for a lake of this size and

type averaging almost 27 inches and five pounds, with the largest fish measuring 31 inches and weighing

just less than seven pounds. Northern Pike of this size and weight would be considered high quality

catchable fish for anglers, even in lakes that are much larger or with more status as a recreational

fishery. There were low numbers of channel catfish and walleye collected but the size of these species

was similar to the northern pike, where the individuals were would be considered large and high quality

size fish for anglers.

8

October 2014

The reasons behind the differences in total catch from 2014 compared to the 2011 DNR survey are not

known. With the exception of the large decrease in bluegills, it seems likely that collection of the other

species is within the variation that would be expected from one survey to the next with these gear

types. The majority of the bluegills and sunfish collected in 2011 were small fish less than six inches in

size. Fish of this size were basically absent from the 2014 survey. It is possible that there was poor

recruitment in one of the year classes from either 2013 or 2014 for these species and that there were

very few of these size individuals present to be collected. An additional factor is the very thick aquatic

vegetation that was present at many of the trap net locations. It is possible that the small, young

bluegills, sunfish and even crappies were hiding in the very thick submerged vegetation and not out

moving freely in the lake, which would keep them from being collected by the trap nets. One method

that could be added to the surveys in the future to check this theory would be to use a bag seine in

areas near the trap nets to survey sections of shoreline for young/smaller bluegills, sunfish or even other

species such as minnows or suckers.

Little Crosby Lake

Fish monitoring had not previously been conducted by the DNR in Little Crosby Lake. As a result no

previous survey locations were available. Due to the small size of the basin, the total number of nets

used for the survey was four trap nets and one gill net. The nets were placed around the lake to sample

various areas of the shoreline and open water (Figure 3). The water depth near the shore where the trap

nets were set was consistently two to three feet deep with little variation (Table 4). The substrate at all

of the trap net locations and the gill net location was muck and submerged vegetation was thick around

most of the trap nets. There was no submerged vegetation in the area where the gill net was set,

however the lake is narrow in this area (Figure 3) and the gill net was not very far from shore where

more vegetation was present.

The total number of fish collected from the trap nets was very low, with only two to five fish collected

from each net (Table 4). The thick vegetation at the trap net locations may have impacted the total

catch. There were schools of very small (~two to three inch long) bullheads and sunfish observed in the

vegetation near the trap net locations. However these fish were not collected in the trap nets. The gill

net was placed in the northeast corner of the lake. The southwest corner of the lake has a very deep

hole (over 25 feet) and dissolved oxygen concentrations were very low (less than 2.0 mg/L) at depths

below five feet. As a result, the very deep hole was avoided and the net was deployed with the smallest

mesh to the northeast in approximately five feet of water and the largest mesh in the deeper water

approximately 12 feet. There were 58 fish collected from the gill net (Table 4).

9

October 2014

Table 4: Little Crosby Lake trap and gill net survey results

Location Depth Substrate Northing Easting Set Retrieved Total Fish

Trap Net 1 2.5 ft. Muck N 44 53' 56.3” W 93 09’ 37.4” 08/11/14 08/12/14 4

Trap Net 2 2.5 ft. Muck N 44 54’ 00.5” W 93 09’ 39.2” 08/11/14 08/12/14 1

Trap Net 3 3.5 ft. Muck N 44 54’ 04.3” W 93 09’ 30.6” 08/11/14 08/12/14 3

Trap Net 4 2.5 ft Muck N 44 54’ 02.7” W 93 09’ 27.5” 08/11/14 08/12/14 5

Gill Net 1 5 – 12 ft Muck N 44 54’ 01.5” W 93 09’ 32.8” 08/11/14 08/12/14 58

There were 71 total fish and seven species collected during the surveys in Little Crosby Lake (Table 5).

The most numerous species collected was black bullhead, which accounted for 57 of 71 fish collected

during the survey, equating to just over 80 percent of the total catch. Yellow perch were the second

most abundant fish collected; however, the total number collected was low, with six individuals equaling

just over eight percent of the catch. For each of the remaining five species collected, there were only

one or two individuals collected, including two individuals each for bluegills, northern pike and

pumpkinseed and one individual each for golden shiner and hybrid sunfish.

Table 5: Species breakdown from Little Crosby Lake survey

Species Total Catch Percent of Catch

Black Bullhead 57 80.3%

Bluegill 2 2.8%

Golden Shiner 1 1.4%

Hybrid Sunfish 1 1.4%

Northern Pike 2 2.8%

Pumpkinseed 2 2.8%

Yellow Perch 6 8.5%

Total 71 100.0%

Partial fish were not measured or weighed, although if identifiable they were included in the total count

for each species/net location. There were turtles collected in each trap net and also evidence of turtles

eating fish entangled in the gill net. There were eight partial fish collected, which were not included in

the length and weight averages for each species. The majority of the black bullheads were collected by

the gill net (53 of 57 fish) and they were similar in size. The overall average for all black bullheads was 8

inches and 0.30 pounds. The largest black bullhead was approximately ten inches and weighed 0.6

pounds. The yellow perch ranged from five to seven inches, and averaging six inches and 0.13 pounds.

There were only two northern pike collected and one fish was only a partial fish (most of the body was

consumed by turtles). The intact fish was a large specimen and was still alive in the gill net. It was

measured at 31.5 inches but then released alive to preserve the fish (the fish was stressed, making it

difficult to get an accurate weight). All of the sunfish species (bluegill, pumpkinseed, hybrid sunfish)

were small individuals, three to six inches in length.

10

October 2014

Compared to the most recent survey on the main Crosby Lake basin (conducted by the DNR in 2004)

there were less total fish and less species collected in Little Crosby Lake in 2014. There were large

numbers of bluegills and pumpkinseeds in the main Crosby Lake survey, significantly more (over 180

total fish from these two species) than were found in Little Crosby Lake. It is possible these fish are not

as prevalent in Little Crosby Lake or that the field conditions during the survey (thick near shore

vegetation or low dissolved oxygen) impacted the collection. Other species such as black crappie, bowfin

(a.k.a. dogfish), common carp and white sucker were collected by the DNR in the main Crosby Lake basin

and not from Little Crosby Lake. It is not known if these species are present in Little Crosby Lake and

were not collected during 2014 efforts or if these species are absent entirely from the smaller basin. In

addition, the Mississippi River periodically floods in spring, connecting the river and both lakes within

the floodplain. Therefore, fish species observed in either lake could potentially be influenced by this

flooding.

Figures

Engineers - ScientistsBusiness Professionalswww.wenck.com

Como Lake

Crosby Lake

Little Crosby Lake

Watershed District Boundary

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISUser Community

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT2014 Fish Lake Survey Locaitons Figure 11800 Pioneer Creek Center

Maple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232

7,000 0 7,0003,500Feet ±

WenckPath: L:\1486\41\Figure 1_Survey Locations.mxdDate: 9/29/2014 Time: 3:29:00 PM User: MadJC0259

SEPT 2014


$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

$+

%,

%,

%,

%,GN2

GN2

GN1

GN1

TN9

TN4

TN3

TN2TN5

TN7

TN1

TN6

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICTComo Lake - Fish Survey Locations Figure 11800 Pioneer Creek Center

Maple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232

400 0 400200Feet ±

WenckPath: L:\1486\41\Como Lake\mxd\Figure 2_ Como Lake Survey Locations.mxd

Site Location

RamseyCounty

DakotaCounty

Date: 9/29/2014 Time: 3:29:33 PM User: MadJC0259

SEPT 2014

Legend%, Gill Nets$+ Trap Nets


$+

$+

$+

$+

%,

%,GN1

GN1

TN4

TN3

TN2

TN1

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICTFish Survey Locations - Little Crosby Lake Figure 31800 Pioneer Creek Center

Maple Plain, MN 55359-04291-800-472-2232

200 0 200100Feet ±

WenckPath: L:\1486\41\Little Crosby\mxd\Little Crosby Survey Locations.mxd

Site Location

RamseyCounty

DakotaCountyDate: 9/29/2014 Time: 3:30:22 PM User: MadJC0259

SEPT 2014

Appendix A

DNR Survey Permit No: 19909


DATE: January 8, 2015 TO: CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist RE: District 6 Natural Resource Inventory Background In 2014, CRWD partnered with the City of St. Paul and the District 6 Planning Council to complete a natural resource inventory within a targeted area of District 6. CRWD contracted Barr Engineering to complete the inventory and develop a report. The goal of the report is to document existing natural resources and their condition, identify opportunities for resource protection/restoration, and provide recommendations on how to increase resource connectivity by creating natural resource corridors. The report will inform the City’s planning process and provide direction to CRWD activities. Issues A draft of the report has been completed and is enclosed. It is currently being reviewed by the City and CRWD. Barr Engineering completed a desktop analysis, field investigations, MLCCS evaluation, tree canopy cover estimates, and vegetation surveys to identify critical natural resource areas. In addition to identification and inventory, Barr developed management goals, strategies, and opportunities for the study area. Goals include protection of open green space, enhancing habitat, and establishing corridors of natural vegetation. Specific parcels were identified for potential future acquisition to create corridors, while other parcels were identified for invasive species removal or creation of a small “pocket park”. The report provides a nice snap shot of the area’s current natural resources and provides guidance for future planning efforts. Requested Action Provide review and comment on the District 6 Natural Resource Inventory enc: District 6 Natural Resource Inventory \\CRWDC01\Company\06 Projects\District 6 NRI\CAC Memo D6 NRI.docx

January 14, 2015 V. District Initiatives for Review B) District 6 Natural Resource

Inventory (Zwonitzer)

TITLE OF REPORT Date of Report

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory

Report

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN November 2014

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory Report

BY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Project conducted in partnership with: City of Saint Paul Barr Engineering Co.

Saint Paul, Minnesota November 2014

District 6 Natural Resources Inventory

November 2014

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 ....................................................................................................................................................................................11

3.1 MLCCS Evaluation and Verification .......................................................................................................................11

3.1.1 Tree Canopy Cover .................................................................................................................................................12

3.2 Field Investigation Results .........................................................................................................................................12

3.2.1 General Observations ............................................................................................................................................12

3.2.2 MLCCS Verification and Quality Rating ..........................................................................................................13

3.2.3 General Vegetation Community Types ...........................................................................................................15

3.2.4 Invasive/Exotic species ..........................................................................................................................................15

3.2.5 Specific Parcel Information ..................................................................................................................................16

4.0 Management Goals, Strategies and Opportunities ..............................................................................................26

4.1 Management Goals ......................................................................................................................................................26

4.2 Management Strategies .............................................................................................................................................27

4.3 Specific Management Opportunities ....................................................................................................................28

4.3.1 Invasive Removal and Clean-ups ......................................................................................................................28

4.3.2 Native Plant Community Enhancements ........................................................................................................28

4.3.3 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement ............................................................................................................................29

4.3.4 Connectivity Enhancements ................................................................................................................................29

4.3.5 Preservation Target Parcels .................................................................................................................................29

4.3.6 Strategic Acquisitions/Easements .....................................................................................................................30

4.3.7 Other Natural Resource Management Actions ...........................................................................................30

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621154 Dist 6 Nat'l Resource Inven\WorkFiles\Report\District 6 NRI_draft for CRWD review.docx

i

List of Tables

Table 1 MLCCS Desktop Analysis Summary .......................................................................................................... 11 Table 2 Summary of Natural Areas ........................................................................................................................... 24

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 ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 Historical Imagery ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Historic Water Resources ................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 6 MLCCS Classification (Barr) ............................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 7 Parcel Investigation ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8 MLCCS Community Quality Ranking (Barr) ........................................................................................... 14

ii

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 treating urban stormwater • Providing information that can be used to develop management priorities

1

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 alongside 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).

2

L'O

rient

St

§̈¦35E

456731

456755

456731

456749

Timbe

rlake

Rd

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 Agate 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

E Hawthorne AveW Hawthorne Ave

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

ir

Norpac Rd

L'O

rient

St

§̈¦35E

456731

456755

456731

456749

Timbe

rlake

Rd

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 Agate 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

ir

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

Nearly all of the topography, natural areas, and wetlands seen today are a result of cultural modifications (History of the Trout Brook Valley 2013). Currently, the site is comprised of varied topography with an industrial rail line situated 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. Available historic imagery also reveals that the central rail corridor defined the site’s infrastructure as it developed into its current state (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

2.2 Desktop Analysis Initial evaluation began by compiling all relevant and publicly-available geospatial and site-specific data. Informative 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).

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 the City 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 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.

5

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


Historic Water Resources

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

Interstate HighwayProject Area

Existing Building FootprintHistoric Wetland (1848 - 1922)

Historic Stream (1848 - 1922)

5

14123

13144

23211

14112

1411314112

14121

13144

13134

32170

42130 14122

1412

3

13134

42310

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

!;N0 580 1,160290

Feet

Figure MLCCS Classification (Barr)

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

Project Area


Altered/non-native deciduous forest duous forest

Altered/non-native deciduous woodland

Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - saturated

Altered/non-native grassland with sparse deciduous trees - temporarily flooded

Buildings and pavement with 76-90% impervious cover



Buildings with 91-100% impervious cover

Long grasses on upland soils

Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

Pavement with 76-90% impervious cover

Pavement with 91-100% impervious cover

Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated vegetation

Planted or maintained herbaceous vegetation

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

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

Short grasses on upland soils

Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils

Tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland

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

6

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure

Capitol RegionWatershed District

Project Area

PROJECT AREA

Project AreaParcelsRamsey

Service Layer Credits: MNGeo WMS service


Label PIN Label PIN Label PIN1 123-192922320054 10 123-192922430006 19 123-1929223100072 123-192922310001 11 123-302922120075 20 123-1929223201413 123-192922420017 12 123-192922430015 21 N/A4 123-192922420015 13 123-192922340044 22 N/A5 123-192922420020 14 123-192922340058 23 N/A6 123-192922430024 15 123-192922340059 24 N/A7 123-192922430025 16 123-3029221200808 123-192922440022 17 123-1929224300129 123-192922440021 18 123-192922310018

11

22 33

44

55

66

77 88

99

2424

101016161111

1212

1717

1313

1414

15151818

191923232121 22222020

Parcels of Initial Investigation

7Parcel Investigation

3.0 Results 3.1 MLCCS Evaluation and Verification The MLCCS evaluation indicates that 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 just over 16% of the project area. Areas dominated by remnant forest and woodlands total approximately 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%

11

MLCCS Level 1 Type Acres Percent of total project area

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%

Barr staff ground-truthed the desktop MLCCS evaluation in the field, and decided that no major revisions were warranted (see Section 3.2 Field Investigation Results)

3.1.1 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%.

3.2 Field Investigation Results 3.2.1 General Observations Field 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.

12

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.

The overall project area slopes gently to the east, with the northwest corner at approximately 840 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the western 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 is immediately south of southeast edge of the project area, on the other side of Maryland Avenue.

3.2.2 MLCCS Verification and Quality Rating 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.

13

!;N0 500 1,000250

Feet

Figure


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

8

3.2.3 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.

3.2.4 Invasive/Exotic species 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 and purple loosestrife, were observed. One MDA Specially Regulated species, Japanese knotweed, was seen in two locations in the project area.

During the field investigations, Barr staff encountered the exotic introduced tree species northern catalpa (Catalpa speciosa) in several locations throughout the District 6 project area. All other tree species encountered are native or introduced to the area.

15

3.2.5 Specific Parcel Information As noted above, Barr worked with CRWD and the City 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, 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 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. 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. An electrical distribution line 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.”

Parcel 2 is a 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

16

perimeter of the wetland. The trees in the center of the wetland are dying and/or have visible interior decay. There was 2-6 inches of standing water in several pools around the wetland during field investigations, all 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 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 Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens), then a mixed native/non-native herbaceous strip before abutting a commercial building.

17

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 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.

18

Parcel 8 contains a roughly rectangular 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.

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.

19

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 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 parcel slopes gently to the east, it becomes 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.

20

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 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).

21

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. The pond is the discharge point for two parallel drainage ditches west of the parcel. 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.

22

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. 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.

23

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

Trout Brook Interceptor

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

quality for birds. • Collect and treat stormwater from adjacent roads

and properties

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/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.

• Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious surfaces with addition of BMPs

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, forbes, and/or tree species.

7 61830 - Permanently flooded altered/non-native dominated

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/Wetland • 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 • Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious

surfaces with addition of BMPs • 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


11 42130 - Altered/non-native

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

24 vv

Parcel No. Vegetation Classification Description Quality Wetland Features Estimated

Slope Ownership Natural

Resource Management Opportunities

12 42130 - Altered/non-native 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

15 42130 - Altered/non-native deciduous woodland

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


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 ROW 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 ROW • Manage stormwater from surrounding impervious

surfaces with addition of BMPs

25 vv

4.0 Management Goals, Strategies and Opportunities Although is outside of the scope of this report to prescribe specific management actions for developing, enhancing or preserving natural resources in the District 6 project area, this section of the NRI Report is intended to help CRWD and the City 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. CRWD and the City can select from management activities 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 CRWD and the City may want to consider 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

26

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.

4.2 Management Strategies Once a particular management goal has been set, CRWD and the City need to consider 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, CRWD and the City may find landowners 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. The City could identify specific properties for 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.

27

• 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.

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 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).

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.

28

• 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 CRWD and City policy should be to strictly prohibit development or further degradation of the wetland.

• Similarly, if the forested portions of Parcels 13, 14 and 15 cannot be acquired, the City could work with the landowners to keep these wooded areas preserved. They 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.

29

• 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. • Several of the parcels contain opportunities to manage and treat local stormwater, and are

identified in Table 2.

30

Capitol Region Watershed District

Citizen Advisory Committee

2015 Agenda Plan

Updated: January 8, 2015

Pervious Parking Lot

East and West Metro Groundwater Management Plan Update

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2015\2015 CAC Agenda Plan 1-8-15.doc

CAC Meeting Date District Initiatives CAC Initiatives

January 14, 2015 - District 6 NRI

- 2014 Fish Survey

-Stewardship Awards Recap

-2015 CAC Meeting Plan

February 11, 2015 - Eustis Street Feasibility Study

- Education Program Review

Discuss 2015 “Event”

March 11, 2015

-Upper Villa Park Project Review

- Partner Grant Review

-Event Planning

April 8, 2015 -2014 Permit Program Update

-Election of Officers

May 13, 2015

-2014 Monitoring Reports -Awards Program

-Event Planning

-CAC Tour Planning

June 10, 2015 Tour of District Projects

July 15, 2015

(3rd Thursday)

2016 Work Plan Development -Awards Program Development

-Event Planning

August 12, 2015

Review and Comment on 2016 Budget -Awards Program Development

-Event Planning

September 9, 2015

-Awards Program

-CAC Recruitment

October 14, 2015

Special and Partner Grant Committees - Awards Program

November 12, 2015

(2nd Thursday)

RSVP Program Update

December 9, 2015

2016 Reappointment

Recommendations

january 15, 2015 cac meeting packet

Documents

cac minutes

cac initiatives

cac recruitment

cac members present

approval of agenda

cac agenda overview

approval of minutes

cac observer update