February 15, 2017 meeting packet

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, February 15, 2017 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Materials Enclosed

I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments, and Approval of the Agenda

II.

Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.)

A) B)

Permit #16-025 Snelling-Midway – Approve 60 Day Extension (Kelley) Permit #16-032 St. Paul Jewish Community Center Addition (Hosch)

IV.

Special Reports A) Loeb Lake and Crosby Lake Shoreland Survey (Vargo) B) William Street Pond Iron Enhanced Sand Filter (IESF) Report (Vargo)

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the January 18, 2017 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivable for the Month of January 2017 (Sylvander) C) AR: Approve Amendments to Well Sealing Grant Program (Sylvander) D) AR: Delegate Decision-Making Authority to CAC for Watershed Steward Awards (Bromelkamp) E) AR: Approve Request for Qualifications for Education and Outreach Professional Services (Bromelkamp) F) AR: Authorize Staff to Apply for Brownfield Grants for 595 Aldine St. (Doneux)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) FI: Diversity Plan Update (Doneux) B) FI: Adopt a Drain (Schwantes)

VII.

General Information A) Citizen Advisory Committee Report

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, March 1, 2017 Board Meeting B) Wednesday, March 8, 2017 CAC Meeting IX.

Adjournment

W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2017\February 15 2017 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

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

February 15, 2017 III. Permits A.) 16-025 Snelling-Midway Review Extension Request

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 9, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Forrest Kelley, PE 60-day Review Period Extensions for Permit 16-025

Background The 60-day review period for Permit 16-025 Snelling-Midway will expire on 2-23-17.

Issues The applicant requested an extension to the 60-day review period prior to the expiration. Staff are working with the applicant to address system design and compliance issues.

Requested Action Approve 60-day review period extension for permit 16-025 Snelling-Midway to expire April 24, 2017.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-025 Snelling Midway\Brd Memo 2nd Extension request 16-025 Snelling Midway.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Michael Waldman St. Paul Jewish Community Center 1375 St. Paul Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55116

Permit 16-032 Saint Paul JCC Addition Consultant: Pat Sveum Pierce Pini and Associates 9298 Central Avenue NE Blaine, MN 55434-3425

Description: Addition to the south side of building, renovation and expansion of 2 existing building entrances, and addition of a delivery truck/fire truck access driveway.

Stormwater Management: One underground filtration system.

District Rule: — C, D, F Disturbed Area: 1.42 Acres Impervious Area: 0.71 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 4 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $3,600 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Revise the orifice invert in HydroCAD and on Sheet C500. Sheet C600 and the Permit Report Response state the invert of the orifice is 802.17. Both the HydroCAD and Sheet C500 show the invert at 802.10.

4. Revise CBs B, C, D, and E to the sump depth of 4 times the diameter of the outlet pipe ratio, as recommended by the EPA.

Permit Location Permit Report 16-032

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 02-15-2017

Davern St.

St. Paul Ave.

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

16-032

Review date:

February 6th, 2017

Project Name:

St. Paul Jewish Community Center

Applicant:

Pat Sveum Pierce Pini & Associates 9298 Central Ave NE, Suite 312 Blaine, MN 55434 763-537-1311

Purpose:

Addition to the south side of building, renovation and expansion of 2 existing building entrances, and addition of a delivery truck/fire truck access driveway,

Location:

1375 St Paul Ave, St Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 4 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plan Set (Sheets C100, C200, C300, C400, C500, C600, C700, C701, C702, C703, C704, C800), by Pierce Pini, dated 1/31/17, rcvd. 1/31/17.

2. Stormwater Calculations, by Pierce Pini, dated 1/30/17, rcvd. 1/31/17.

3. Geotechnical Report, by AET, dated 10/5/16, rcvd. 12/29/16.

4. Site Survey, by Clark Engineering, dated 9/20/16, rcvd. 12/29/16.

5. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan, by Pierce Pini, dated 12/28/16, rcvd. 12/29/16.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-032, SPJCC Addition\16-032 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 1 of 4

 Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.  Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1 inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 30,928 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 30,928 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 2,835 ft3 Volume Volume 1.1 inch 2 inch Retention Retention BMP Runoff Runoff Required Provided below (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) outlet (cu. ft.)

None, filtration is proposed.

2,835 Total 0 cf c. Filtration using sand media (55% credit) is proposed due to poor soils and shallow bedrock; filtration required: 2,835 ft3 x 1.82 credit factor = 5,160 ft3 Filtration Filtration 1.1 inch 2 inch Volume Volume BMP Runoff Runoff Required Provided below (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) outlet (cu. ft.)

Underground Filtration 5,215 9,481 5,249 5,160 Total 5,249 cf d. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. e. Filtration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate. f. The filtration area is capable of filtering the required volume within 48 hours.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-032, SPJCC Addition\16-032 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 2 of 4

g. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to filtration areas. Pre-treatment does not meet EPA guidelines.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested.

5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has not been submitted.

Adequate maintenance access is provided for underground system.

Maintenance agreement includes a site specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a landdisturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-032, SPJCC Addition\16-032 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 3 of 4

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard ďƒ˜ Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

Recommendation: Approve 4 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $3,600 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Revise the orifice invert in HydroCAD and on Sheet C500. Sheet C600 and the Permit Report Response state the invert of the orifice is 802.17. Both the HydroCAD and Sheet C500 show the invert at 802.10.

4. Revise CBs B, C, D, and E to the sump depth of 4 times the diameter of the outlet pipe ratio, as recommended by the EPA.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-032, SPJCC Addition\16-032 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 4 of 4

February 15, 2017 Board Meeting IV. Special Reports A) Loeb and Crosby Lake Shoreland Survey (Vargo)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 9, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Maddie Vargo, Water Resource Technician 2016 Loeb and Crosby Lake Shoreland Survey

Background There are five lakes within the boundaries of CRWD: Como Lake, Crosby Lake, Little Crosby Lake, and Loeb Lake, and Lake McCarrons. Each lake is collaboratively monitored by Ramsey County Public Works, Ramsey Conservation District (RCD), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and CRWD to assess overall health and compliance with water quality standards.

To protect lakes from shoreline degradation, the District must first determine the existing condition of the shoreline in order to best prioritize targeted management and restoration. Banks with steep slopes, highly erodible soils, and invasive plant communities are most prone to shoreline degradation. The District has previously completed shoreline surveys for Como Lake and Lake McCarrons.

Issues In August 2016, RCD and CRWD staff completed shoreline assessment surveys for Loeb, Crosby, and Little Crosby Lakes. These surveys included shoreline erosion susceptibility assessments and vegetation surveys.

Staff will review the 2016 Loeb and Crosby Shoreline Survey at this Board meeting. The report review will highlight key findings from the assessment.

Requested Action Accept the 2016 Loeb and Crosby Shoreline Survey.

Enc: 2016 Loeb and Crosby Shoreline Survey

W:\06 Projects\Shoreline Assessment 2016\Memos\Board Memo_Shoreline_Assessment 02-15-17

Loeb, Crosby and Little Crosby Lake Shoreline Assessment December 2, 2016

Northeast Shoreline of Crosby Lake. Photo from CRWD, 2016.

Crosby and Little Crosby Lakes

Loeb Lake

By: Andrea Prichard, Environmental GIS Technician

For:

Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose................................................................................................................................ 1 METHODS AND PROCEDURES SUMMARY ............................................................... 2 1. Erosion ........................................................................................................................ 2 2. Vegetation Survey....................................................................................................... 3 DETAILED METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 3 Erosion Analysis Deskwork ............................................................................................ 3 Erosion Analysis Fieldwork ............................................................................................ 7 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 10 LOEB LAKE ................................................................................................................ 10 Shore Zone ................................................................................................................ 10 Bank Zone ................................................................................................................. 10 Overall Shoreline ...................................................................................................... 10 LITTLE CROSBY LAKE ............................................................................................ 12 Shore Zone ................................................................................................................ 12 Bank Zone ................................................................................................................. 12 Overall Shoreline ...................................................................................................... 12 CROSBY LAKE ........................................................................................................... 14 Shore Zone ................................................................................................................ 14 Bank Zone ................................................................................................................. 15 Overall Shoreline ...................................................................................................... 15 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................. 16 VEGETATION SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................................. 17 Loeb Lake ..................................................................................................................... 17 Little Crosby Lake ........................................................................................................ 18 Crosby Lake .................................................................................................................. 18 Findings......................................................................................................................... 19 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 20 Appendix A. Location of Loeb, Crosby, and Little Crosby Lakes ................................... 21 Appendix B. Parcel Ownership of Loeb and Crosby Lakes ............................................. 22 Appendix C. Soil Textures from field survey ................................................................... 23 Appendix D. Individual Factor Results, Erosion .............................................................. 25 Appendix E. Numeric Results of Erosion Study .............................................................. 27 Appendix F. Vegetation Survey Results ........................................................................... 30

Introduction Healthy shorelines are crucial to maintaining high water quality and biologically diverse habitats in the lakes of Minnesota. This study characterizes the condition of Loeb, Crosby, and Little Crosby Lakes’ shorelines in terms of a) erosion susceptibility and b) vegetation composition. Between August and October of 2016, a field crew composed of Capitol Region Watershed District and Ramsey Conservation District staff surveyed the shorelines of these lakes to evaluate various factors involved in erosion susceptibility such as: steepness, soil texture, and ground cover (% native plants, invasive plants, bare ground, or paved surface). Methods and results of the erosion study and the vegetation survey are described in the sections below, with more detailed quantitative results found in the appendices.

Background Loeb, Crosby, and Little Crosby Lakes are located in Saint Paul, MN, within the Capitol Region Watershed District (Appendix A). Crosby Lake is 64 acres with a maximum depth of 19 feet and 8,492 linear feet of shoreline, and nearby Little Crosby Lake measures 8.3 acres with a maximum depth of 34 feet and 2654 linear feet of shoreline. Loeb Lake covers 8.8 acres with a maximum depth of 28 ft and 2,611 feet of linear shoreline (RCD, 2016).

Loeb Lake’s shoreline is owned completely by the City of Saint Paul, while the Crosby Lake area is jointly owned by Saint Paul Parks and Recreation in the southwest, the City of Saint Paul in the northeast, and the Port Authority of Saint Paul in the northwest (Appendix B). Loeb Lake’s water level ranges from 849 to 852 feet, and Crosby’s Lakes’ ordinary water level is 694 ft (CRWD, 2016). While the Crosby Lakes are in a floodplain forest with little development except for paved nature trails around the lakes, Loeb Lake is more highly impacted due to its location in a residential area as part of Marydale Park, which is dominated by turf grass and has a paved trail close to the lake’s perimeter.

Purpose In the 2005 Crosby Farm Regional Park Ecological Inventory and Restoration Management Plan, the two most critical maintenance projects highlighted were 1) Bluff slope erosion control and 2) Monitoring and control of invasive species (Great River Greening, 2005).

This study addresses these critical issues in the most vulnerable area for the lakes – the shoreline – for both Crosby Lakes and Loeb Lake.

The shoreline is the last line of defense in filtering sediment and pollutants from entering a lake. Banks with steep slopes and highly erodible soils are the most prone to shoreline degradation. Stabilizing or restoring the shoreline can prevent further erosion as well as aid in the filtration of runoff. It is preferable to utilize native vegetation, where possible, to restore shorelines, provide habitat, and prevent further erosion (Dakota SCWD, 2014).

To best protect Loeb, Crosby, and Little Crosby Lakes from shoreline erosion, one must first ascertain the existing condition of the shoreline in order to best prioritize restoration efforts. The Ramsey Conservation District (RCD) has conducted a detailed assessment of the shorelines of Loeb, Crosby and Little Crosby Lakes with respect to shoreline erosion and presence of natural vegetative buffers in order to provide a resource for targeted resource management and restoration.

1

METHODS AND PROCEDURES SUMMARY 1. Erosion The methodology for the shoreline erosion surveys consisted of gathering field data at the three lake shores and analyzing the data to determine the susceptibility for erosion in the bank zone (water edge to bank) and the shore zone (50 ft outward from the bank) as defined

by Minnesota’s Sensitive Lakeshore Identification Manual (Figure 1). Multiple factors (described below) were quantified and combined to create final maps of the shorelines’ erosion susceptibility.

Figure 1. Shore Zone (50 ft from bank top) and Bank Zone (water line to bank top). (MNDNR, 2008)

Shoreline Erosion Susceptibility in Bank and Shore Zones: In order to evaluate the risk of erosion around the shorelines of these three lakes, we applied the most widely used empirical erosion model, the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE).

This model, used for various land covers ranging in scale from a parcel to a watershed, can be used to estimate the mass of soil lost or to conduct soil erosion risk assessments (Gitas et. al, 2009). With the latter intention in mind, we incorporated factors used in previous shoreline assessments conducted in the Twin Cities metro area (such as existing erosion, steepness, soil erodibility, and land cover type), assigned them values based on field assessments, and inputted them into the USLE model to determine the erosion susceptibility of each section of shoreline. This model application removed the risk of subjective rankings and permitted a quantitative analysis with scientifically proven relationships that provided consistent erosion risk comparison among all sections of the three lakes.

Elements of the USLE that relate to agricultural practices were removed, and the rainfall erosivity factor was modified to incorporate the effects of impervious surfaces and existing gully erosion. For this reason, the final quantified value for each section is unitless and is used to place each surveyed section into qualitative erosion susceptibility categories (e.g., low, moderate). Final maps of erosion susceptibility for each lake are presented in the Findings section, and maps of individual factors, such as soil erodibility, are found in Appendix D. 2

2. Vegetation Survey In order to characterize the flora along the bank and shore zones of Loeb, Crosby and Little Crosby Lakes, field staff identified the most predominant species of vegetation at each geolocated survey section along the lake shores, using data sheets and a Trimble GPS unit.

Native species with at least 25% coverage per section were noted, though many native species of lesser coverage are also included in parts of the survey. All invasive species were noted where observed, with estimated percent coverage per section. Ramsey Conservation District Natural Resource Specialist Michael Schumann conducted the shore zone vegetation surveys for all three lakes and the bank zone vegetation survey for Loeb Lake.

Capitol Region Watershed District Water Resource Technician Maddie Vargo completed the vegetation survey for the bank zones of Little Crosby and Crosby Lakes, in consultation with RCD staff. The results of the vegetation survey can be found after the erosion study results, with detailed species lists provided in Appendix F. Note: Using the DNR’s designation of the bank zone existing between the current water line and the bank top (Figure 1), the bank zone was truncated in this study due to unusually high water levels, and some vegetation under water was not surveyed. Some vegetation usually classified as shore vegetation may have been classified as bank vegetation where the ordinary bank was flooded.

DETAILED METHODOLOGY Erosion Analysis Deskwork The shoreline for each lake was split into approximately 50m or 100m lettered sections for the bank zones and shore zones using ArcGIS. The shapefiles were transferred to a Trimble GPS unit to facilitate fieldwork and ensure all sampling occurred in the designated section.

Fieldwork results, recorded by section on field sheets by staff, were integrated into ArcGIS shapefiles, with each factor quantified in accordance with the Universal Soil Loss Equation model. The raster layers were multiplied together in ArcMap to create a final map, whose values were divided into four classes, to display levels of erosion susceptibility (Table 1).

The higher the value for each factor, the higher the risk for erosion. Value ranges for each of the four classes were kept consistent for all final maps, for the purpose of comparison among sections of lakes. Due to regular upkeep of the grounds around these lakes, none of the sections were found to have high erosion susceptibility, and only one section was classified as moderate.

Table 1 Shoreline Erosion Susceptibility Classes

Class Very Low Low Low-Moderate Moderate

Value <.025 .025-.1 .1-.25 .25-.75

Shoreline Erosion Susceptibility Description Very low risk of erosion.

Low risk of erosion-should be monitored if land cover changes.

Low-moderate risk for erosion-should be monitored bi-annually.

Moderate risk for erosion-should be monitored after heavy rains.

3

This section will describe the theoretical application of the USLE model, as well as how it was customized in this study to better fit the site conditions. The factors below in red were the four factors multiplied in this study.

Equation 1 Universal Soil Loss Equation (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978)

A = RKLSCP      

A = Average annual soil loss (tons/acre) R = Rainfall erosivity index K = Soil erodibility factor LS = Steepness factor (Length,Slope) C = Land Cover factor P = Conservation Practice factor

The Universal Soil Loss Equation was used as follows for this assessment: A – Annual Soil Loss This study is an erosion risk assessment rather than an estimation of soil lost, so tons/acre were not calculated. Rather, final values were used to place erosion susceptibility into qualitative classes based on a scientifically backed weighting system for the components involved in erosion.

R – Rainfall Erosivity Index (modified) Given the proximity of each of these sites, rainfall data was considered a constant. This factor was replaced by a modified runoff coefficient, since the presence of impervious surface concentrates the intensity of the force of any given rainfall, converting rain that would otherwise infiltrate soil into runoff that compounds erosive force. Thus, factor R was modified to be 1 for each area without impervious surfaces, and for areas including pavement, 1+ the fraction of impervious surface covering the area. For instance, R for a bank zone with 20% ground cover of sidewalk would be 1.2, raising the overall erosion risk by 20% due to the increased intensity of runoff. The range of R in this study due to the presence of paved surfaces was 1-1.3. In two areas, values of 1.5 were given in the R field in areas of active gullies, whose concentration of water compounds water’s erosive force more strongly than paved surfaces. In this way, areas with existing erosion increased the overall erosion risk by 50%.

K – Soil Erodibility factor This is an inherent property of each soil type and its likelihood to erode, with sands and clays unlikely to erode (low coefficient) but silts much more likely to erode (high coefficient), with Percent organic matter (Pom) altering erodibility as well. A soil auger was used in the field, with soil sampled on each section of each shore zone and bank zone to determine texture and organic matter content. Results of this survey can be found in Appendix C.

4

Table 2. K, Soil Erodibility Factor (PNNL, n.d.)

LS- Steepness factor This factor is an equation based on two values: percent slope and length of slope, as seen below: Equation 2. Calculation of LS (OMAFRA, 2012)

5

This factor had the most impact in this study on the likelihood of erosion, due to the large variability in topography and the steepness of certain areas of shore zones in particular.

Values ranged from 0.11-3.16 in Loeb Lake alone. Steep areas are more prone to landslides, and gullies form more rapidly in areas with high slope.

C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Land Cover factor (modified) This factor gives a numerical value to the type of vegetation covering the area in question.

The values were based on the table below and adjusted based on percent tree canopy cover, native understory cover, weedy cover with less secure roots, and bare ground higher than 5%. Since the percent ground cover in almost all cases was 95-100%, the impact of this factor was very small (.003 to .02) compared to other factors with values orders of magnitude larger. In order for this factor to make an impact on the final map, it was multiplied by a factor of 10 to have a final range between (0.03-0.2). In general, however, this component played a minor role in the analysis due to the low presence of bare soil.

Table 3. C factor, Cover management for idle land (Purdue, n.d.)

P â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Conservation Practice Factor This refers to agricultural best management practices for tilled soils, and thus was eliminated from the calculation.

6

Erosion Analysis Fieldwork Both Loeb and Little Crosby Lakes were divided into sixteen 50-meter sections, labeled A-P. Crosby Lake was divided into twenty-five 100-meter sections, labeled A-Y. A Trimble GPS unit was used in the field with these polygon sections pre-loaded to be sure the correct area was being surveyed. As much of the area was walked as possible, but thick, tall vegetation restricted movement in the Crosby Lakes, so not all of the study area was covered, though each section was visited.

K â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Soil Erodibility A soil auger was used to extract soil used to determine texture of relatively shallow soils (within the top 1ft) at both shore and bank zones for each section. Soil sample was wetted, if necessary, to conduct the following field test to determine the soilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s texture, and corresponding K value.

Figure 2. Guide to Texture by Feel (USDA, n.d.)

7

Though USDA soil surveys show the general trends of soils in these areas, the section-bysection sampling revealed greater variation in soil textures throughout the sites, especially in the Crosby Lakes, which are subject to frequent flooding from the Mississippi River, bringing additional sediment. Sediment also enters the shoreline area from eroding bluffs and stormwater discharge from culverts along the northern bluff.

LS - Steepness The Steepness factor is the one that had the greatest variability in field techniques. The small size, limited tree cover, and easy terrain of Marydale Park allowed the use of a Laser Level device at Loeb Lake to measure the elevations of the lake, bank, and top of shore zone. Coupled with a measuring tape to measure the length of the bank zone (variable) and shore zone (50 ft from bank), the laser level afforded us precise measurements to calculate LS at Loeb Lake.

At Crosby and Little Crosby Lakes, where high, thick vegetation and difficult access prevented the use of a laser level, a visual estimate was used, using the classifications seen in Figure 3 and Table 4 as a visual aid to estimate slope percentage in the field. Thus, LS for Crosby Lakes is less precise than for Loeb Lake. However, 1-ft LiDAR contour data from 2011 was used to verify slope in these areas.

Figure 3. Slope Gradients used for field estimation (BCMF, 2000)

8

Table 4. Definition of Slope Classes (NRCS, n.d.)

Classes Simple Slopes

Complex Slopes

Nearly level

Slope gradient limits Lower Percent

Upper Percent

Nearly level

0

3

Gently sloping

Undulating

1

8

Strongly sloping

Rolling

4

16

Moderately steep

Hilly

10

30

Steep

Steep

20

60

Very steep

Very steep

>45

R (Rainfall Erosivity) and C (Land Cover) Both R and C factors (based on ground cover) were recorded for each lettered section (for shore and bank zones) with a simple field sheet filled in with estimates of percent cover of bare ground, turf grass, paved surface, tree cover, native vegetation, and weedy vegetation.

Water Levels During the Study The bank zone’s width varies depending on the water level. Since 2016 has been the second wettest year on record for Minnesota (Star Tribune, 2016), lake levels have been higher than average. This accounts for slender bank zones and gaps in the map – especially for Loeb Lake – between the water’s edge (as viewed in 2011 aerial imagery) and the bank zone’s beginning (as observed in the field in flooded conditions). Loeb Lake’s average water level is 849-852 ft (CRWD, 2016), but during this study, the elevation was over 851.5 (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Loeb Lake Water Levels 2006-2016 (MNDNR Lakefinder, 2016)

9

FINDINGS LOEB LAKE On August 22, 2016, field staff completed the erosion analysis survey of Loeb Lake. The shoreline was subdivided into 16 sections, each roughly 50 meters long. The bank was, on average, determined to be 10 feet from the waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s edge. GPS points were taken in each bank and shore section in order to adjust section boundaries as needed.

Shore Zone In general, the shore zone of Loeb Lake has a good buffer zone due to its high level of established vegetation, though most of this vegetation is Kentucky Blue Grass. There are some very low erosion susceptibility sections along the south (B, D, E and F) due to the lower slopes in those areas, which are the only shore zones around the lake with slopes less than 10%. In general, the Rainfall Erosivity index is high around this lake due to the paved path, increasing the area of impervious surface and runoff intensity. The Land Cover factor is also great due to the prevalence of turf grass rather than native plants or trees with deeper, more stabilizing roots.

Bank Zone Two thirds of the bank zone have very low erosion susceptibility. Section O has the highest bank slope and the highest index of bare ground, making it the most critical section of Loeb Lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shoreline to protect. Fishing is popular on this lake, and several fishers prefer to fish in the shade of the shoreline rather than the dock, which is creating bare areas in the bank zone in the most popular fishing spots.

Figure 5. Popular fishing area at Section O, Loeb Lake

Section N also has a high index of bare ground, but its low slope keeps it in a low-risk category. Sections A, J, L, and M have higher than average erosion susceptibility due to their steeper slopes (21%-31%) and bare soils in A and M, but their overall risk is low due to high levels of vegetation establishment, although just over 50% of it is weedy.

Overall Shoreline All 5 of the higher-risk bank zone sections are paired with higher-risk shore zone sections upgradient of the bank. Most of this erosion susceptibility is due to the steepness of the terrain and will only be problematic if paired with bare soil or concentrated flows of water.

Thus, periodic grounds maintenance and monitoring for these changes should be sufficient for erosion control. However, section O has steep terrain coupled with bare soil, which

10

creates conditions for erosion with each strong rain event.

Due to the bare spotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relatively small size, the susceptibility remains in the low-moderate category.

Figure 6 shows section Kâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s turf-covered, relatively steep north shore with purple loosestrife in the foreground.

Figure 6. Loeb Lake's Section K, with purple loosestrife

Figure 2. Overall Shoreline Erosion Susceptibility, Loeb Lake.

11

LITTLE CROSBY LAKE On August 24, 2016, field staff completed the erosion analysis survey of Little Crosby Lake. There are 16 sections, each roughly 50 meters long. The 2005 Restoration Management Plan highlighted areas of active erosion on the bluff slopes northwest of Little Crosby Lake (Great River Greening, 2005), but those areas were not investigated since they lie outside the study area.

The only active gully found in this survey was located in Section N of the shore zone, where it was causing damage to the trail, marked by an Figure 3. Gully erosion in Section N, Little Crosby Lake orange cone.

Shore Zone Though most of Little Crosby has very low erosion susceptibility in the shore zone, sections L-P are higher risk, largely due to their steepness, since they form the base of the bluff along the northwestern border of the lake. In addition to being the steepest section, O also had the most erodible soils (silty clay loam) with a Soil Erodibility factor of .37, placing Section O in the “low-moderate” category. Another section to monitor is N, due to the presence of a gully that has concentrated water flows and increased erosion potential.

Bank Zone Though some areas in the bank zone of Little Crosby Lake had more highly erodible soils, all sections were 100% covered by vegetation (mostly native), and all slopes were classified as “Nearly Level” or “Gently Sloping,” which place all sections in the lowest category of erosion susceptibility.

Overall Shoreline Overall, Little Crosby Lake’s shoreline is in very good condition, with the highest risk coming from the steepness of the northwestern shore, especially in areas of active erosion.

Groundcover was composed of 75% trees and native vegetation, 23% weeds, and 2% paved surfaces. The sections with greater than 50% weed covers were B (shore zone) for reed canary grass and F (shore zone) for Reed Canary Grass as well as garlic mustard. Figure 9 shows a typical section of Little Crosby Lake (G) with relatively flat shores, a mix of invasive Reed Canary Grass with native Arrowhead growing in the foreground with floodplain forest in the background.

12

Figure 94. Section G of Little Crosby Lake

Figure 5. Overall Shoreline Erosion Susceptibility, Little Crosby Lake

13

CROSBY LAKE On August 29, 2016, field staff completed the erosion analysis survey of Crosby Lake. The shoreline was divided into 25 sections of approximately 100 meters for the survey. All sections of the bank zone were visited via canoe, but due to time and accessibility limitations, not all 100 meters of each section of the shore zone were walked, and thus some localized areas of topography, land cover, and vegetation may not have been observed. The sections are described based on the area visible and accessible to the field crew during each section’s stop. Soil samples were not collected at Section P due to difficulty of access, so Soil Erodibility factors were assigned between the values of soils in sections O and R. Shore Zone Despite the presence of a paved trail raising both Land Cover and Rainfall Erosivity factors in sections C-F, the long stretch of shoreline between Section B and Section S remains in the lowest class of erosion susceptibility, mostly due to the flatter slope. Sections C-O have shore slope of Nearly Level or Gently Sloping. Sections Q, R, and S have sandy soils that reduced the Soil Erodibility factor and reduced overall erosion potential. Section A also has coarse sand with a low Soil Erodibility factor, but the slope is quite steep where it has been built up for the path, and there is a weedy presence of buckthorn. This section, along with sections T and U are in the “low” category because they have good vegetative cover but moderately steep terrain. Section V is also considered low erosion susceptibility, but it has a large area of bare soil that should be targeted for stabilization. The largest presence of weeds was found in the shore zones of D-E, I-M, and R-V. Section W, while no steeper than section V, is in the “low-moderate” range due to the presence of a large culvert, discharging great amounts of water (higher Rainfall Erosivity value) and requiring frequent monitoring and maintenance to prevent gully formation and erosion, especially since the loamy soil has a high Soil Erodibility factor. Section Y is in the “low-moderate” range due to its steep slope, and X is in the “moderate” category for its very steep classification, which is the section with the steepest topography of the three lakes.

Figure 11. Culvert Outlet, Section W of Crosby Lake. 8/29/2016

14

Bank Zone Most of Crosby’s bank zone has very low erosion susceptibility due to its relatively gentle slopes. Crosby Lake’s bank zone has a high occurrence of weedy vegetation cover (just over 60%), with higher density of weeds in sections E-H, K-M, and S-A. Section D has a small area of bare soil in both bank and shore zones. Sections X and Y have moderately steep bank zones, placing them in a higher category of erosion susceptibility, but still classified as “low” due to stable ground cover.

Overall Shoreline The overall shoreline erosion susceptibility of Crosby Lake aligns closely with the topography of the bluffs along the north shore (see Appendix D for 1-ft contour lines in the Steepness factor map) – the steepest areas have the highest potential for erosion, particularly in Sections W, X and Y with their high slopes and the presence of the large culvert discharging stormwater in Section W. Though there is a large presence of weedy vegetation along the banks of Crosby Lake, it has little impact on the shoreline’s erosion susceptibility due to its thickness, with rare instances of bare ground.

Figure 6. Overall Shoreline Erosion Susceptibility, Crosby Lake

15

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS This study evaluated physical factors of the lakes’ shorelines that are commonly used in local shoreline assessments and incorporated these facotrs into the USLE model to characterize the risk for erosion in each section of the lakes’ shore and bank zones. In general, these areas are low-risk for erosion due to regular grounds maintenance and high vegetation presence, so it was most appropriate to analyze these shorelines in terms of susceptibility to erosion, rather than a measure of actual soil lost. A brief explanation of each factor’s role in this analysis will be presented below, followed by a summary of areas highlighted in this study that should receive targeted restoration or monitoring attention.

Due to the high variability in slopes of these lakes, the most significant factor separating lake sections was the Steepness factor. Areas with steep slopes (especially those with highly erodible soils) are more subject to landslides or gully formation than flatter, more stable areas.

The next highest impact on erosion susceptibility for this study was the presence of gullies, followed by the presence of impervious surfaces, both represented by the Rainfall Erosivity factor, since runoff increases in gullies and impervious surfaces, strengthening the force of water erosion locally. Soil texture and land cover had less impact, largely because 95-100% of the ground cover was vegetated, and little exposed soil was present.

The highest risk areas for this study were steep areas with eroding bare soil, such as Loeb’s O section, Little Crosby’s N-O area, and Crosby’s W section, where a large culvert exists.

These three areas should be evaluated for stabilization improvements. Crosby’s X-Y area should also be monitored frequently due to its exceptionally steep slopes and erodible soils.

Specific numeric values for all sections and factors, as well as the total value, may be seen in Appendix E to see the value of each factor and its weight in the final erosion susceptibility classification.

The lake sections not mentioned in the preceding paragraph fall into the categories of low and very low erosion susceptibility. The steep areas of these lakes (the north shores of the Crosbys and the majority of Loeb Lake) should be monitored periodically for land cover change – particularly the appearance of bare soil, which would rapidly and dramatically increase the risk of erosion. Monitoring should also occur after any large storm events that create high-energy runoff discharge, potentially provoking concentrated erosion beneath culvert outlets along the Crosby Lake bluffs.

Of the three lakes, Little Crosby had the most stable vegetation, including high levels of tree and native vegetation cover. Crosby had the second-highest quality of vegetation coverage, though the majority of the bank zone was covered by invasive, weedy vegetation.

Finally, Loeb Lake had the lowest-quality vegetation cover due to higher incidences of bare ground, impervious surfaces, and turf grasses. However, the type of vegetative cover had less overall impact on the erosion risk than the factors mentioned above. Improvements in Loeb could consist of an improved native buffer zone and reduced mowing around the lake’s perimeter, as well as stabilization of exposed soils due to recreational fishing in areas other than the dock. Additional information is provided in the following section, conveying the results of the Vegetation Survey conducted in shore and bank zones of the same lakes.

16

VEGETATION SURVEY RESULTS

Figure 137. CRWD staff Maddie Vargo and RCD staff Michael Schumann conducting vegetation surveys in southwest Crosby Lake. 8/29/2016.

Below are the findings of a section-by-section survey around the perimeters of Loeb, Little Crosby, and Crosby Lakes. Vegetation in the bank zone and the shore zone of each lake was documented, listing all invasive species found as well as any predominant native species per section. Below is a brief description of findings. Detailed results of plant prevalence, section, and zone are shown in Appendix F of this report. A summary of invasive species detected is presented at the bottom of this section.

Loeb Lake Loeb Lake’s shore zone was surveyed September 23, 2016, and its bank zone was surveyed October 10th, 2016. 20 invasive species and 36 native species were documented, with the most prevalent invasive species being Reed Canary Grass and Common Buckthorn in both bank and shore zones. The shore zone also had high occurrences (in at least half of the 16 sections) of invasive species including Broadleaf Plantain, Ground Ivy, and Kentucky Blue Grass. Both bank and shore zones had 14 species of invasive plants. Loeb Lake’s most common native plants, in both zones, are the American Elm, Box Elder, Eastern Cottonwood, and Green Ash. Black Willow is also found in the majority of sections of Loeb’s bank zone.

Overall, Loeb has a truncated bank zone due to mowing of the native vegetation where it borders the turf grass surrounding the lake, encroaching into the native buffer of the bank 17

zone, resulting in steeper banks with greater propensity towards erosion and less capacity to filter pollutants in runoff before reaching the lake (see Figure 14).

With native buffer vegetation mown, more room is provided for invasive species such as Buckthorn, Broadleaf Plantain, and Ground Ivy to proliferate. Best management strategies for restoration might include Buckthorn removal, buffer zone establishment with native plants, and restricted mowing to protect the native buffer around the Figure 14. Mowing and turf grass encroaching on and reducing the native buffer in Section J of Loeb Lake lake.

Little Crosby Lake Little Crosby Lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bank zone was surveyed August 24, 2016, and the shore zone of the vegetation survey was completed on September 23, 2016. 17 invasive species and 31 native species were identified around the lake. The most common invasive species found (in at least half of the 16 sections) were Reed Canary Grass in both zones and Common Buckthorn and Ground Ivy in the shore zone. The shore zone had a high diversity of both native and invasive plant species documented (25 and 16, respectively) while the bank zone had fewer species, dominated by natives (11 natives, 3 invasives). Jewelweed was the most prevalent native plant in both shore and bank zones. Other native species found throughout most of the perimeter of Little Crosby Lake include American Elm, Box Elder, Riverbank Grape, Silver Maple, and Wood Nettle for the shore zone and Broadleaf Arrowhead for the bank zone. Eradication efforts could target Reed Canary Grass, dominant in both zones.

Crosby Lake On August 29, 2016, field staff completed the vegetation survey of both shore and bank zones of Crosby Lake. 15 invasive species and 34 native species were identified around the lake. Reed Canary Grass, Purple Loosestrife, and Narrowleaf Cattail were invasive species found throughout most of the sections in the bank zone around the lake, while Garlic Mustard and Reed Canary Grass were the most prevalent invasive species for the shore zone (found in over half of the 25 total sections). The shore zone showed a high diversity in native plant species (32 total listed in the survey), with Silver Maple and Green Ash found in most of the perimeter sections, while Giant Bur-reed was the most prevalent native species found in the bank zone. Eradication efforts could begin by targeting Garlic Mustard and Reed Canary Grass.

18

Findings Detailed findings of the vegetation survey for these three lakes, including species (common and botanical name), percent prevalence, and location can be found in Appendix F of this report. The following table summarizes the invasive species found in this vegetation survey, as divided by Lake and Zone (shore or bank). The most commonly detected invasive species are at the top of each list, followed by the number of sections in which they were present.

Table 5. Invasive Species detected in the 2016 Vegetation Surveys of the bank zones and shore zones of Loeb, Little Crosby, and Crosby Lakes

Loeb Lake Invasive Species

Common Buckthorn Broadleaf Plantain Ground Ivy Kentucky Bluegrass Reed Canary Grass

Shore Zone

Common Burdock Bittersweet Nightshade Giant Ragweed Crown Vetch Smooth Brome Amur Maple Scotch Pine Sow Thistle Yellow Sweet Clover

Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn

Bank Zone

Ground Ivy Kentucky Bluegrass Purple Loosestrife Narrow Leaf Cattail Broadleaf Plantain Siberian Elm Amur Maple Weeping Willow Common Burdock Giant Ragweed Red Clover White Sweet Clover

Little Crosby Lake

Number of Sections where detected 14 13 13 13 11 6 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1

15 11 6 6 6 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1

Crosby Lake

Number of Sections where detected

Invasive Species

Number of Sections where detected

Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Ground Ivy

16 9 8

Reed Canary Grass Garlic Mustard Common Buckthorn

23 14 11

Broadleaf Plantain Common Burdock Garlic Mustard Kentucky Bluegrass Narrow Leaf Cattail Purple Loosestrife Hog Peanut Bittersweet Nightshade Canada Thistle White Sweet Clover Bittercress Western Poison Ivy Curly Dock

7 7 7 7 6 6 4 3 3 3 2 2 1

Common Burdock Ground Ivy Purple Loosestrife Canada Thistle Tartarian Honeysuckle Bull Thistle Curly Dock Birdsfoot Trefoil Hog Peanut Narrow Leaf Cattail Northern Catalpa

8 8 8 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1

Reed Canary Grass

11

Purple Loosestrife Hybrid Cattail

5 3

Reed Canary grass NarrowLeaf Cattail Purple Loosestrife

21 18 15

Canada Thistle Sow Thistle

2 1

Invasive Species

Bold species are those that were detected in half the sections or more. Loeb and Little Crosby Lakes had 16 sections around the perimeter, and Crosby Lake had 25 sections.

19

REFERENCES British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMF), 2000. Recreation Manual, Chapter 10: Recreation Trail Management. Accessed 7/5/2016 at https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00201/chap10/chap10.htm Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2016. 2015 Lakes Monitoring Report March 2016.

Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. (Dakota SWCD), 2014. Backyard Conservation: Native Shoreline Planting. Accessed 7/5/2016 at http://www.dakotacountyswcd.org/shore_fs.html Gitas, I.Z., Douros, K., Minakou, C. Silleos, G.N. & Karydas, C.G., 2009. Multi-Temporal Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in N. Chalkidiki Using a Modified USLE Raster Model. European Association of Remote Sensing Laboratories. EARSeL eProceedings 8, 1/2009.

Great River Greening, 2005. Crosby Farm Regional Park Ecological Inventory and Restoration Management Plan. Great River Greening with assistance from Ramsey Conservation District. January 2005.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), 2008. Minnesota’s Sensitive Lakeshore Identification Manual: A Conservation Strategy for Minnesota’s Lakeshores. Version 1, March 2008.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Lakefinder (MNDNR Lakefinder), 2016. Lake water level report. Accessed 11/30/2016 at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showlevel.html?downum=62023100 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), no date. USDA. Soils Survey Manual – Chapter Three. Accessed 7/5/2016 at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142p2_054253 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), 2012. Universal Soil Loss Equation Factsheet 572/751. October 2012. Accessed 9/22/2016 at http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/12-051.htm#3 Purdue Engineering, no date. USLE App Appendix A: Estimating Soil Loss with the USLE. Accessed 9/22/2016 at https://engineering.purdue.edu/mapserve/sedspec/doc/usleapp.doc Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), no date. 5.3.2. Soil Erodibility Factor Accessed 9/22/2016 at http://mepas.pnnl.gov/mepas/formulations/source_term/5_0/5_32/5_32.html.

Ramsey Conservation District (RCD), 2016. Lake area and perimeter calculated by ArcMap tools in GIS software. Depth measured by RCD staff using a transducer and BioBase software in 2016.

Star Tribune, 2016. Back to the 60s – Second Wettest Year on Record or Minnesota and Wisconsin.

By Paul Douglas, November 8, 2016.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), no date. Guide to Texture by Feel. Accessed 9/22/2016 at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=nrcs142p2_054311 modified from S.J. Thien. 1979. A flow diagram for teaching texture by feel analysis. Journal of Agronomic Education. 8:54-55.

Wischmeier and Smith, 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A guide to conservation planning.

USDA Agriculture Handbook 537. December 1978 Accessed 7/5/2016 at https://www.scribd.com/document/26639388/WISCHMEIER-e-SMITH-1978-Predicting-RainfallErosion-Losses-a-Guide-to-Conservation-Planning

20

Appendix A. Location of Loeb, Crosby, and Little Crosby Lakes

21

Appendix B. Parcel Ownership of Loeb and Crosby Lakes

22

Appendix C. Soil Textures from field survey Loeb Lake Section SOIL TEXTURE A-Bank sandy loam A-Shore sandy loam B-Bank clay loam B-Shore fine sandy loam C-Bank sandy clay loam C-Shore sandy loam D-Bank sandy loam D-Shore sandy loam E-Bank sandy loam E-Shore fine loamy sand F-Bank sandy clay loam F-Shore fine loamy sand G-Bank sandy clay loam G-Shore sandy clay loam H-Bank clay loam H-Shore sandy loam I-Bank sandy clay loam I-Shore sandy clay loam J-Bank sandy loam J-Shore sandy loam K-Bank sandy clay loam K-Shore sandy loam L-Bank sandy loam L-Shore sandy loam M-Bank fine loamy sand M-Shore fine loamy sand N-Bank clay loam N-Shore clay loam O-Bank fine loamy sand O-Shore clay loam P-Bank fine loamy sand P-Shore sandy clay loam

Little Crosby Lake organics? low low low low low low

low low low

Average K

K value 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.3 0.3 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.26

Section SOIL TEXTURE A-Bank silty clay loam A-Shore sandy loam B-Bank sandy loam B-Shore loam C-Bank loam C-Shore loam D-Bank loam D-Shore fine loamy sand E-Bank sandy loam E-Shore clay loam F-Bank clay loam F-Shore silty clay loam G-Bank fine sand G-Shore loam H-Bank silty loam H-Shore silty loam I-Bank silty clay loam I-Shore silty clay loam J-Bank silty clay loam J-Shore clay loam K-Bank loam K-Shore clay loam L-Bank loam L-Shore sandy clay loam M-Bank loam M-Shore fine loamy sand N-Bank coarse loamy sand N-Shore fine loamy sand O-Bank clay loam O-Shore silty clay loam P-Bank clay loam P-Shore sandy loam

organics? K value high 0.26 low 0.24 0.27 low 0.34 low 0.34 0.38 0.38 0.24 low 0.24 0.28 low 0.25 0.37 0.16 0.38 low 0.42 low 0.42 0.37 0.37 low 0.32 0.28 low 0.34 low 0.25 high 0.29 low 0.25 low 0.34 0.24 0.12 0.24 high 0.21 0.37 low 0.25 0.27 Average K

0.30

23

Crosby Lake Section

A-Bank A-Shore B-Bank B-Shore C-Bank C-Shore D-Bank D-Shore E-Bank E-Shore F-Bank F-Shore G-Bank G-Shore H-Bank H-Shore I-Bank I-Shore J-Bank J-Shore K-Bank K-Shore L-Bank L-Shore M-Bank M-Shore N-Bank N-Shore O-Bank O-Shore P-Bank P-Shore Q-Bank Q-Shore R-Bank R-Shore S-Bank S-Shore T-Bank T-Shore U-Bank U-Shore V-Bank V-Shore W-Bank W-Shore X-Bank X-Shore Y-Bank Y-Shore

SOIL TEXTURE coarse loamy sand coarse sand sandy loam coarse sand sandy loam silty loam clay loam clay loam loam loam clay loam clay loam silt loam loam clay loam clay loam silty clay loam loam loam clay loam loam loam loam loam loam loam loam loam loam loam not sampled not sampled coarse sand fine loamy sand fine loamy sand coarse sand coarse loamy sand coarse sand loam loam sandy loam sandy loam sandy loam sandy loam sandy loam loam loam fine loamy sand loam loam

organics?

low

low

low low

low low

low

low high

Average K

K value 0.12 0.05 0.27 0.05 0.27 0.48 0.28 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.48 0.38 0.25 0.28 0.37 0.38 0.34 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.3 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.38 0.38 0.2 0.29 0.38 0.29

24

Appendix D. Individual Factor Results, Erosion

25

26

Appendix E. Numeric Results of Erosion Study

Loeb Lake Zones Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore

Section Name A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P

R (Impervious Impact) 1.1 1.25 1 1.3 1 1.2 1 1.3 1 1.25 1 1.2 1 1.15 1 1 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1.05 1 1.05 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.25 1 1.25

K (Erodibility of Soil) 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.3 0.3 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.27

C LS (Vegetation (Steepness) Cover) 2.36 0.063 1.65 0.094 0.58 0.078 0.38 0.099 0.11 0.086 1.13 0.094 0.37 0.062 0.59 0.104 0.29 0.046 0.48 0.105 0.19 0.078 0.48 0.090 0.58 0.070 1.46 0.096 0.74 0.070 1.84 0.102 0.77 0.093 1.13 0.105 1.94 0.070 1.65 0.100 0.35 0.078 1.13 0.102 1.52 0.078 1.46 0.097 3.16 0.072 1.65 0.098 0.58 0.168 1.46 0.104 2.82 0.197 1.29 0.089 1.41 0.062 2.05 0.105

Total Value

Value as %

0.039 0.046 0.013 0.015 0.003 0.034 0.006 0.021 0.003 0.015 0.004 0.012 0.011 0.044 0.014 0.051 0.019 0.038 0.037 0.053 0.007 0.032 0.032 0.040 0.055 0.050 0.024 0.050 0.133 0.036 0.021 0.072

4% 5% 1% 1% 0% 3% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 4% 1% 5% 2% 4% 4% 5% 1% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 2% 5% 13% 4% 2% 7%

27

Little Crosby Lake Zones

Section Name

Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore

A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P

R (Impervious Impact) 1 1.2 1 1.05 1 1.05 1 1.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 1 1

K (Erodibility of Soil) 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.34 0.34 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.25 0.37 0.16 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.34 0.25 0.29 0.25 0.34 0.24 0.12 0.24 0.21 0.37 0.25 0.27

C LS (Vegetation (Steepness) Cover) 0.09 0.030 0.35 0.040 0.09 0.038 0.13 0.089 0.21 0.038 0.35 0.059 0.09 0.050 0.35 0.059 0.21 0.054 0.35 0.038 0.21 0.070 0.35 0.078 0.09 0.062 0.35 0.046 0.21 0.034 0.13 0.040 0.09 0.046 0.13 0.050 0.09 0.070 0.13 0.046 0.09 0.046 0.98 0.050 0.21 0.046 2.98 0.038 0.21 0.046 2.98 0.046 0.21 0.030 2.98 0.046 0.21 0.030 6.08 0.050 0.21 0.038 2.98 0.058

Total Value

Value as %

0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.003 0.008 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.001 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.012 0.003 0.028 0.003 0.033 0.001 0.049 0.001 0.112 0.002 0.047

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 5% 0% 11% 0% 5%

28

Crosby Lake Zones Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore Bank Shore

R K C Section LS (Impervious (Erodibility (Vegetation Name (Steepness) Impact) of Soil) Cover) A 1 0.12 0.09 0.102 A 1 0.05 12.76 0.050 B 1 0.27 0.09 0.046 B 1 0.05 4.40 0.058 C 1 0.27 0.09 0.030 C 1.2 0.48 0.13 0.060 D 1 0.28 0.09 0.055 D 1.2 0.28 0.13 0.083 E 1 0.38 0.53 0.094 E 1.15 0.38 0.13 0.086 F 1 0.28 0.21 0.094 F 1.05 0.28 0.35 0.047 G 1 0.48 0.53 0.094 G 1 0.38 0.13 0.062 H 1 0.25 1.01 0.094 H 1 0.28 0.35 0.070 I 1 0.37 0.21 0.055 I 1 0.38 0.35 0.086 J 1 0.34 0.09 0.062 J 1 0.28 0.13 0.086 K 1 0.38 0.09 0.110 K 1 0.38 0.13 0.102 L 1 0.38 0.09 0.110 L 1 0.38 0.13 0.090 M 1 0.38 0.09 0.078 M 1 0.38 0.13 0.102 N 1 0.38 0.09 0.062 N 1 0.38 0.35 0.054 O 1 0.34 0.09 0.070 O 1 0.34 0.35 0.070 P 1 0.24 0.09 0.062 P 1 0.3 0.98 0.050 Q 1 0.05 0.21 0.046 Q 1 0.24 0.98 0.050 R 1 0.24 0.21 0.070 R 1 0.05 0.98 0.078 S 1 0.12 0.21 0.094 S 1 0.05 0.98 0.078 T 1 0.34 0.21 0.094 T 1 0.34 2.98 0.078 U 1 0.27 0.53 0.102 U 1 0.27 2.98 0.082 V 1 0.27 0.09 0.102 V 1 0.24 2.98 0.074 W 1.5 0.27 0.21 0.094 W 1.5 0.38 2.98 0.062 X 1 0.38 1.63 0.094 X 1 0.2 58.16 0.062 Y 1 0.29 1.63 0.094 Y 1 0.38 10.26 0.062

Total Value

Value as %

0.001 0.032 0.001 0.013 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.019 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.024 0.003 0.024 0.007 0.004 0.011 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.008 0.001 0.015 0.000 0.012 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.079 0.015 0.066 0.003 0.053 0.008 0.105 0.058 0.721 0.045 0.242

0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 1% 7% 0% 5% 1% 11% 6% 72% 4% 24%

29

Appendix F. Vegetation Survey Results Vegetation species detected, separated by “native” and “invasive,” are presented in the tables below according to the lettered section in which it was found, corresponding to the sections shown in the maps below. Loeb and Little Crosby Lake sections are roughly 50 meters long, while Crosby Lake’s sections are roughly 100 meters long. Findings are further separated into vegetation found in the “bank” zone (vegetation found from the water’s edge to the bank) and the “shore” zone (50 feet outwards from the bank).

Note: Crosby and Little Crosby bank zones were surveyed by Maddie Vargo (CRWD) and show an estimated percent prevalence. Native plants were only listed if estimated at 25% prevalence or greater. Loeb’s bank zone and all shore zones were surveyed by Michael Schumann (RCD) and show an estimated range of percent prevalence of species, including native species found at less than 25% prevalence.

LOEB LAKE

30

Shore Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Native Species

Loeb Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Native Species Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name % Prevalence A River Birch Betula nigra 1-5% B Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% B River Birch Betula nigra 5-25% B Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% B Woodland Sunflower Helianthus strumosus 1-5% B Black Walnut Juglans nigra 1-5% B American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% C Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% C White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima 5-25% C Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% C Woodland Sunflower Helianthus strumosus 5-25% C Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 1-5% C Sandbar Willow Salix interior 25-50% D Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% D White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima 1-5% D Brown Eyed Susan Rudbeckia triloba 5-25% D Sandbar Willow Salix interior 5-25% D Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides 1-5% D American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% D Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% E Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% E Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 5-25% E Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% F Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% F Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 1-5% F Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1-5% F White Ash Fraxinus americana 5-25% F Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% F Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% F Black Willow Salix nigra 1-5% F Goldenrod Var. Solidago spp.

1-5% F Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides 1-5% F Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% G Box Elder Acer negundo 1-5% G Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 1-5% G Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 1-5%

Section H H H I I I I J J K K K K K K K L L L L L L L L M M M M M M M N N N N N

Loeb Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Native Species Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name % Prevalence Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 1-5% Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 1-5% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% Grey Dogwood Cornus racemosa 1-5% Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 1-5% Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 1-5% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima 5-25% Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 5-25% White Ash Fraxinus americana 5-25% Black Walnut Juglans nigra 1-5% Tamarack Larix laricina 0-1% Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus 1-5% Black Willow Salix nigra 1-5% Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1-5% White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima 1-5% River Birch Betula nigra 5-25% Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 1-5% Black Walnut Juglans nigra 5-25% Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus 5-25% Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 1-5% Box Elder Acer negundo 50-75% Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 5-25% White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima 5-25% Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 1-5% Ironwood Ostrya virginia 5-25% American Elm Ulmus americana 1-5% Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% White Mulberry Morus alba 1-5% Ironwood Ostrya virginia 5-25% Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 25-50% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25%

31

Shore Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Invasive Species

Loeb Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Invasive Species Section Invasive Species Botanical Name A Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea A Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major A Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis B Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea B Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea B Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major B Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis B Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica C Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea C Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea C Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major C Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica C Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara D Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea D Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica E Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea E Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica F Smooth Brome Bromus inermis F Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea F Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea F Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major F Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis F Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica G Common Burdock Arctium minus G Smooth Brome Bromus inermis G Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica G Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis G Crown Vetch Securigera varia G Sow Thistle Sonchus arvensis H Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea H Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea H Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris H Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major H Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis H Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica H Crown Vetch Securigera varia I Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea I Yellow Sweet Clover Melilotus officinalis I Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea I Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major I Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis I Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica

% Prevalence 1-5% 1-5% 75-95% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 50-75% 1-5% 1-5% 5-25% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 25-50% 1-5% 5-25% 25-50% 1-5% 1-5% 5-25% 1-5% 5-25% 25-50% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 50-75% 5-25% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 0-1% 1-5% 50-75% 5-25% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 5-25% 1-5% 50-75% 1-5%

Loeb Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Invasive Species Section Invasive Species Botanical Name % Prevalence J Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% J Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% J Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% J Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% J Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 25-50% J Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% J Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara 1-5% K Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% K Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% K Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% K Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% K Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 25-50% K Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1-5% K Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara 1-5% L Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% L Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% L Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% L Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 25-50% L Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% M Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida 1-5% M Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% M Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% M Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% M Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 5-25% M Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% N Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida 1-5% N Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% N Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% N Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 1-5% N Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% N Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 5-25% N Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% O Amur Maple Acer ginnala 5-25% O Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida 1-5% O Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% O Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% O Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% O Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 75-95% O Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% P Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% P Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% P Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 75-95%

32

Bank Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Native Species Loeb Lake Vegetation Survey - Bank Zone Native Species Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name A Red Maple Acer rubrum A Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca A River Birch Betula nigra A Prairie Cord Grass Spartina pectinata A Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis A Common Milkweed Asclepia syriaca A Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides A Smartweed Persicaria pensylvanica A Redtwig Dogwood Cornus sericea A White Mulberry Morus alba A Sugar Maple Acer saccharum A American Elm Ulmus americana B Box Elder Acer negundo B River Birch Betula nigra B Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica B Woodland Sunflower Helianthus strumosus B Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides B Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides B American Elm Ulmus americana B Riverbank Grape Vitis riparian B Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca B Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides B Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia C Black Willow Salix nigra C Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides C Sandbar Willow Salix interior C Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica D Redtwig Dogwood Cornus sericea D Jewelweed Impatiens capensis D Black Willow Salix nigra D Sandbar Willow Salix interior D Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica E Black Willow Salix nigra E Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides E Sandbar Willow Salix interior E Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica F Redtwig Dogwood Cornus sericea F Black Willow Salix nigra F Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica F American Elm Ulmus americana F Silver Maple Acer saccharium

% Prevalence 1-5% 1-5% 0-1% 25-50% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 1-5% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 1-5% 1-5% 5-25% 5-25% 1-5% 5-25% 25-50% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 1-5% 5-25% 5-25% 0-1% 5-25% 5-25% 1-5% 5-25%

Loeb Lake Vegetation Survey - Bank Zone Native Species Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name % Prevalence G Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% G Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% G Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca 5-25% G White Ash Fraxinus americana 5-25% G Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 5-25% G Black Willow Salix nigra 1-5% G American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% H Black Walnut Juglans nigra 1-5% H Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 1-5% H Redtwig Dogwood Cornus sericea 0-1% I Black Willow Salix nigra 0-1% I Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% J Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 25-50% J Willow Herb Epilobium coloratum 1-5% J Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% J Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 1-5% J Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1-5% K Sandbar Willow Salix interior 5-25% K Black Willow Salix nigra 0-1% K Stinging Nettle Utrica dioica 0-1% L Larch Larix laricina 0-1% L Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 1-5% L Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 1-5% L Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% L Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1-5% L River Birch Betula nigra 5-25% L Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 1-5% M Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 5-25% M Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 1-5% M Box Elder Acer negundo 50-75% M Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 1-5% N Black Willow Salix nigra 0-1% N Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% N White Mulberry Morus alba 1-5% N Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 25-50% N American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% O River Birch Betula nigra 5-25% O Paper Birch Betula papyrifera 1-5% O Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides 1-5% O Black Willow Salix nigra 1-5% O Weeping Willow Salix babylonica 1-5% O American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% P Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 1-5% P Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 1-5% P Black Willow Salix nigra 1-5% P American Elm Ulmus americana 1-5% P Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25%

33

Bank Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Invasive Species

Loeb Lake Vegetation Survey - Bank Zone Invasive Species Section Invasive Species Botanical Name % Prevalence A Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 1-5% A Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% A Common Buckthorn Rhamnus carthartica 0-1% A Red Clover Trifolium pratense 0-1% A Amur Maple Aver ginnala 0-1% A Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 0-1% A Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 5-25% B Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% B Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% B Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% B Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 1-5% B Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% B Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% B Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifoloa 1-5% C Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 75-95% C Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% D Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 75-95% E Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% E Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% E Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 0-1% F Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% F Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifoloa 1-5% F Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% F Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 0-1% F Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1-5% G Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 1-5% G Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 0-1% G Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% G Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% H Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% H Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25%

Loeb Lake Vegetation Survey - Bank Zone Invasive Species Section Invasive Species Botanical Name % Prevalence I Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% I Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifoloa 5-25% J Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% J Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 5-25% J Weeping Willow Salix babylonica 0-1% K Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 75-95% K Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifoloa 0-1% K Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 5-25% L Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 75-95% L Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifoloa 1-5% L Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 5-25% L Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% M Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% M White Sweet Clover Melilotus albus 1-5% N Weeping Willow Salix babylonica 0-1% N Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% N Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% O Amur Maple Acer ginnala 5-25% O Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida 1-5% O Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% O Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% O Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% O Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% O Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 5-25% O Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% O Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 5-25% P Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% P Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% P Broadleaf Plantain Plantago major 1-5% P Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 5-25% P Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% P Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 5-25%

34

LITTLE CROSBY LAKE

35

Shore Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Native Species Little Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Native Species Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical name % Prevalence A Lake Sedge Carex lacustris 5-25% A Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% A Broadleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia 1-5% A Sandbar Willow Salix interior 1-5% B Lake Sedge Carex lacustris 25-50% B Giant Manna Grass Glyceria grandis 5-25% B Sandbar Willow Salix interior 1-5% C Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% C Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% C Lake Sedge Carex lacustris 5-25% C Giant Manna Grass Glyceria grandis 1-5% C Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% C Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 5-25% D Box Elder Acer negundo 25-50% D Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% D Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% D Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% D Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 50-75% D Ontario Aster Symphyotrichum ontarionis 1-5% D Basswood Tilia americana 1-5% D American Elm Ulmus americana 25-50% D Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% E Box Elder Acer negundo 25-50% E Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% E Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% E Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% E Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 50-75% E Ontario Aster Symphyotrichum ontarionis 1-5% E Basswood Tilia americana 1-5% E American Elm Ulmus americana 25-50% E Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% F Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% F Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% F Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 25-50% F Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 5-25% F Golden Glow Rudbeckia laciniata 5-25% F Black Willow Salix nigra 5-25% F Ontario Aster Symphyotrichum ontarionis 1-5% F Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% G Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% G Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% G Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 25-50% G Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 50-75% G Common Reed Phragmites australis 1-5% G Golden Glow Rudbeckia laciniata 5-25% G American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% H Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% H Lake Sedge Carex lacustris 5-25% H Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 1-5% H Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% H Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 5-25% H Common Reed Phragmites australis 1-5% H Black Willow Salix nigra 1-5% I Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% I Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% I Lake Sedge Carex lacustris 5-25% I Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% I Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 25-50% I Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 5-25% I American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% I Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% J Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% J Lake Sedge Carex lacustris 5-25% J Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% J Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 25-50% J Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 5-25% J Common Reed Phragmites australis 5-25% J Black Willow Salix nigra 1-5% J Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% J Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 1-5%

Section K K K K K K K K K L L L L L L L L L L L L L L M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O P P P P P P P P

Little Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Native Species Predominant Vegetation Botanical name % Prevalence Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 25-50% Black Ash Fraxinus nigra 25-50% Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 25-50% Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 50-75% Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 1-5% Black Willow Salix nigra 5-25% Basswood Tilia americana 5-25% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 1-5% Grey Dogwood Cornus racemosa 5-25% Black Ash Fraxinus nigra 1-5% Green Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica 5-25% Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 5-25% Common Reed Phragmites australis 25-50% Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 1-5% Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 1-5% Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense 1-5% Black Willow Salix nigra 1-5% Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 1-5% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% Grey Dogwood Cornus racemosa 5-25% Black Ash Fraxinus nigra 5-25% Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 5-25% Common Reed Phragmites australis 5-25% Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 1-5% Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense 1-5% Sandbar Willow Salix interior 5-25% Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 5-25% Golden Rod Var. Solidago spp.

5-25% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% Grey Dogwood Cornus racemosa 5-25% Black Ash Fraxinus nigra 5-25% Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis 5-25% Common Reed Phragmites australis 5-25% Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 1-5% Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense 1-5% Sandbar Willow Salix interior 5-25% Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 5-25% Golden Rod Var. Solidago spp.

5-25% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia 5-25% Box Elder Acer negundo 5-25% Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% Grey Dogwood Cornus racemosa 5-25% Black Ash Fraxinus nigra 5-25% Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% Common Reed Phragmites australis 5-25% Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 1-5% Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense 1-5% Sandbar Willow Salix interior 1-5% Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 5-25% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 5-25% Lake Sedge Carex lacustris 5-25% Jewelweed Impatiens capensis 5-25% Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 5-25% Sandbar Willow Salix interior 5-25% Black Willow Salix nigra 5-25% American Elm Ulmus americana 5-25% Beggartick Bidens spp 5-25%

36

Shore Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Invasive Species Little Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Invasive Species Section Invasive Species Botanical Name % Prevalence A Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% A Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% A Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1-5% A Curly Dock Rumex crispus 1-5% A Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifolia 5-25% B Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% B Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% C Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 1-5% C Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% C Broadleaf Plantain Plantage major 1-5% C Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 1-5% C Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara 1-5% D Garlic Mustard Allaria petiolata 5-25% D Common Burdock Arctium minus 5-25% D Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% D Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% E Garlic Mustard Allaria petiolata 5-25% E Common Burdock Arctium minus 5-25% E Bittercress Cardamine hirsuta 1-5% E Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% E Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% E Broadleaf Plantain Plantage major 1-5% E Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 1-5% F Garlic Mustard Allaria petiolata 5-25% F Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% F Bittercress Cardamine hirsuta 1-5% F Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% F Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% F Broadleaf Plantain Plantage major 1-5% F Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 1-5% G Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% G Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 1-5% G Broadleaf Plantain Plantage major 1-5% G Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 1-5% H Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% H Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 1-5% H Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% H Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% H Broadleaf Plantain Plantage major 1-5% H Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 1-5% H Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1-5% H Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara 1-5% I Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% I Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% I Broadleaf Plantain Plantage major 1-5% I Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 1-5% I Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1-5% I Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamara 1-5%

Section J J J J J J K K K K L L L L L M M M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O P P P P

Little Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Invasive Species Invasive Species Botanical Name % Prevalence Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 1-5% Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Broadleaf Plantain Plantage major 1-5% Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis 1-5% Garlic Mustard Allaria petiolata 1-5% Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea 5-25% Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% Garlic Mustard Allaria petiolata 1-5% Hog Peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata 1-5% Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 1-5% Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 5-25% Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifolia 1-5% Garlic Mustard Allaria petiolata 5-25% Hog Peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata 5-25% Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% White Sweet Clover Melilotus albus 1-5% Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% Western Poison Ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii 1-5% Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifolia 5-25% Garlic Mustard Allaria petiolata 5-25% Hog Peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata 5-25% Common Burdock Arctium minus 1-5% Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% White Sweet Clover Melilotus albus 1-5% Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% Western Poison Ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii 1-5% Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifolia 5-25% Hog Peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata 5-25% Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% White Sweet Clover Melilotus albus 1-5% Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifolia 5-25% Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1-5% Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 1-5% Narrow Leaf Cattail Typha angustifolia 52-5%

37

Bank Zone Survey Results Little Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Bank Zone Invasive Species

Little Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Bank Zone Native Species % Prevalence Sagittaria latifolia 25% Salix interior 30% Impatiens capensis 40% Sagittaria latifolia 70% Impatiens capensis 25% Sagittaria latifolia 40% Impatiens capensis 25% Carex lacustris 25% Impatiens capensis 25% Sagittaria latifolia 50% Sagittaria latifolia 40% Cirsium muticum 25% Sagittaria latifolia 25% Urtica dioica 30% Sagittaria latifolia 25% Impatiens capensis 25% Urtica dioica 25% Sagittaria latifolia 25% Impatiens capensis 80% Carex lacustris 25% Impatiens capensis 50% Sparganium eurycarpum 25% Carex lacustris 25% Phragmites australis 75% Impatiens capensis 25% Sparganium eurycarpum 25% Phragmites australis 50% Phragmites australis 50% Impatiens capensis 25% Sparganium eurycarpum 25% Phragmites australis 25% Scirpus fluviatilis 25% Phragmites australis 25% Phragmites australis 75% Scirpus fluviatilis 25% Sparganium eurycarpum 25% Prunus Virginiana 25% Impatiens capensis 25%

Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name A A A B B C C C D D E E F F G G G

H H H I I I J J K K L M M M N N O O P P P

Broadleaf Arrowhead Sandbar Willow Jewelweed Broadleaf Arrowhead Jewelweed Broadleaf Arrowhead Jewelweed Lake Sedge Jewelweed Broadleaf Arrowhead Broadleaf Arrowhead Swamp Thistle Broadleaf Arrowhead Stinging Nettle Broadleaf Arrowhead Jewelweed Stinging Nettle Broadleaf Arrowhead Jewelweed Lake Sedge Jewelweed Giant Bur-reed Lake Sedge Common Reed Jewelweed Giant Bur-reed Common Reed Common Reed Jewelweed Giant Bur-reed Common Reed River bulrush Common Reed Common Reed River bulrush Giant Bur-reed Chokecherry Jewelweed

Section Invasive Species A A B C C D D E F G G H I I J L L M M M N P

Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Purple Loosestrife Hybrid Cattail Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Hybrid Cattail Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Narrowleaf Cattail Narrowleaf Cattail Reed Canary Grass Purple Loosestrife Narrowleaf Cattail Hybrid Cattail

Botanical Name Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Typha x glauca Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Typha x glauca Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Typha angustifolia Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Typha angustifolia Typha x glauca

% Prevalence 1% 10% 5% 10% 1% 5% 25% 50% 60% 10% 1% 10% 15% 10% 5% 10% 25% 25% 5% 1% 25% 5%

38

CROSBY LAKE

39

Shore Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Native Species Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Native Species Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name A A A A A B B B B B B C C C C C C C D D D D E E E E E E F F F F G G G G G G G H H H H H H H

Box Elder White Snake Root Green Ash American Elm Riverbank Grape Box Elder Green Ash Jewelweed Wood Nettle Virginia Creeper Riverbank Grape Box Elder Silver Maple Black Ash Green Ash Wood Nettle American Elm Riverbank Grape Silver Maple Black Ash Wood Nettle American Elm Silver Maple Black Ash Jewelweed Wood Nettle Clearweed American Elm Silver Maple Wood Nettle Golden Glow American Elm Box Elder Silver Maple Black Ash Wood Nettle Golden Glow American Elm Stinging Nettle Box Elder Silver Maple Black Ash Wood Nettle Golden Glow American Elm Stinging Nettle

Acer negundo Ageratina altissima Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ulmus americana Vitis riparia Acer negundo Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Laportea canadensis Parthenocissus quinquefolia Vitis riparia Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Fraxinus nigra Fraxinus pennsylvanica Laportea canadensis Ulmus americana Vitis riparia Acer saccharinum Fraxinus nigra Laportea canadensis Ulmus americana Acer saccharinum Fraxinus nigra Impatiens capensis Laportea canadensis Pilea pumila Ulmus americana Acer saccharinum Laportea canadensis Rudbeckia laciniata Ulmus americana Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Fraxinus nigra Laportea canadensis Rudbeckia laciniata Ulmus americana Urtica dioica Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Fraxinus nigra Laportea canadensis Rudbeckia laciniata Ulmus americana Urtica dioica

Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Native Species % Prevalence 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 25-50% 25-50% 50-75% 5-25% 5-25% 75-95% 5-25% 50-75% 5-25% 75-95% 5-25% 5-25% 75-95% 5-25% 5-25% 50-75% 75-95% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 50-75% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 50-75% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25%

Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name I I I I I I I I J J J J J J J K K K K K L L L L L M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O P P P P P P P P P

Box Elder Silver Maple Black Ash Jewelweed Wood Nettle Pennsylvania Smartweed Clearweed American Elm Box Elder Silver Maple Black Ash Wood Nettle Clearweed Eastern Cottonwood American Elm Silver Maple Green Ash Wood Nettle Eastern Cottonwood Black Willow Silver Maple Pennsylvania Smartweed Sandbar Willow Black Willow Giant Bur-reed Silver Maple Green Ash Black Willow Giant Bur-reed Silver Maple Lake Sedge Redtwig Dogwood Green Ash Jewelweed Rice Cut Grass Broadleaf Arrowhead Sandbar Willow Black Willow Common Elderberry Giant Bur-reed Silver Maple Green Ash Black Willow Giant Bur-reed Redtwig Dogwood Black Ash Green Ash Jewelweed Rice Cut Grass Eastern Cottonwood Black Willow Common Elderberry Giant Bur-reed

Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Fraxinus nigra Impatiens capensis Laportea canadensis Persicaria pensylvanica Pilea pumila Ulmus americana Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Fraxinus nigra Laportea canadensis Pilea pumila Populus deltoides Ulmus americana Acer saccharinum Fraxinus pennsylvanica Laportea canadensis Populus deltoides Salix nigra Acer saccharinum Persicaria pensylvanica Salix interior Salix nigra Sparganium eurycarpum Acer saccharinum Fraxinus pennsylvanica Salix nigra Sparganium eurycarpum Acer saccharinum Carex lacustris Cornus sericea Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Leersia oryzoides Sagittaria latifolia Salix interior Salix nigra Sambucus canadensis Sparganium eurycarpum Acer saccharinum Fraxinus pennsylvanica Salix nigra Sparganium eurycarpum Cornus sericea Fraxinus nigra Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Leersia oryzoides Populus deltoides Salix nigra Sambucus canadensis Sparganium eurycarpum

% Prevalence 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 50-75% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 50-75% 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50%

40

Shore Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Native Species, continued Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Native Species Section Predominant Vegetation Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q R R R R R R R R R S S S S S S S S S S S T T T T T T T T T T T U U U U U U U U U U U U

Lake Sedge Redtwig Dogwood Black Ash Green Ash Jewelweed Rice Cut Grass Eastern Cottonwood Black Willow Common Elderberry Giant Bur-reed Silver Maple Redtwig Dogwood Boneset Spotted Joe Pye Weed Jewelweed Pennsylvania Smartweed Eastern Cottonwood Sandbar Willow Black Willow Silver Maple Redtwig Dogwood Boneset Spotted Joe Pye Weed Green Ash Jewelweed Pennsylvania Smartweed Eastern Cottonwood Golden Glow Sandbar Willow Black Willow Silver Maple Redtwig Dogwood Black Ash Green Ash Jewelweed Eastern Cottonwood Common Elderberry Giant Bur-reed American Basswood American Elm Maple Leaf Viburnum Box Elder Silver Maple Lake Sedge Redtwig Dogwood Green Ash Jewelweed Eastern Cottonwood Missouri Gooseberry Common Elderberry Goldenrod Var Broad Leaf Cattail American Elm

Botanical Name Carex lacustris Cornus sericea Fraxinus nigra Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Leersia oryzoides Populus deltoides Salix nigra Sambucus canadensis Sparganium eurycarpum Acer saccharinum Cornus sericea Eupatorium perfoliatum Eutrochium maculatum Impatiens capensis Persicaria pensylvanica Populus deltoides Salix interior Salix nigra Acer saccharinum Cornus sericea Eupatorium perfoliatum Eutrochium maculatum Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Persicaria pensylvanica Populus deltoides Rudbeckia laciniata Salix interior Salix nigra Acer saccharinum Cornus sericea Fraxinus nigra Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Populus deltoides Sambucus canadensis Sparganium eurycarpum Tilia americana Ulmus americana Viburnum acerifolium Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Carex lacustris Cornus sericea Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Populus deltoides Ribes missouriense Sambucus canadensis Solidago spp Typha latifolia Ulmus americana

Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Native Species % Prevalence 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25%

Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name V V V V V V V V V W W W W W W W W W X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Box Elder Silver Maple White Snake Root Redtwig Dogwood Green Ash Green Ash Wood Nettle Eastern Cottonwood Riverbank Grape Box Elder Silver Maple White Snake Root Redtwig Dogwood Green Ash Green Ash Wood Nettle Eastern Cottonwood Riverbank Grape Box Elder Silver Maple Beggartick Redtwig Dogwood Green Ash Jewelweed Rice Cut Grass Swamp Smartweed Eastern Cottonwood Sandbar Willow Black Willow Giant Bur-reed Maple Leaf Viburnum Riverbank Grape Box Elder Silver Maple Beggartick Redtwig Dogwood Green Ash Jewelweed Rice Cut Grass Swamp Smartweed Eastern Cottonwood Sandbar Willow Black Willow Giant Bur-reed Maple Leaf Viburnum Riverbank Grape

Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Ageratina altissima Cornus sericea Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Laportea canadensis Populus deltoides Vitis riparia Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Ageratina altissima Cornus sericea Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Laportea canadensis Populus deltoides Vitis riparia Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Bidens spp Cornus sericea Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Leersia oryzoides Persicaria amphibia Populus deltoides Salix interior Salix nigra Sparganium eurycarpum Viburnum acerifolium Vitis riparia Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Bidens spp Cornus sericea Fraxinus pennsylvanica Impatiens capensis Leersia oryzoides Persicaria amphibia Populus deltoides Salix interior Salix nigra Sparganium eurycarpum Viburnum acerifolium Vitis riparia

% Prevalence 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 50-75% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 50-75% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 5-25%

41

Shore Zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Invasive Species Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Invasive Species Section Invasive Species A A A A A B B B B C C C C D D D D E E E F F F G G G G G H H H H H I I I J J K L M N N N

Garlic Mustard Ground Ivy Tartarian Honeysuckle Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Garlic Mustard Ground Ivy Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Garlic Mustard Ground Ivy Tartarian Honeysuckle Reed Canary Grass Garlic Mustard Ground Ivy Tartarian Honeysuckle Reed Canary Grass Garlic Mustard Ground Ivy Reed Canary Grass Garlic Mustard Ground Ivy Reed Canary Grass Garlic Mustard Common Burdock Canada Thistle Ground Ivy Reed Canary Grass Garlic Mustard Common Burdock Canada Thistle Ground Ivy Reed Canary Grass Garlic Mustard Common Burdock Reed Canary Grass Garlic Mustard Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Reed Canary Grass Hog Peanut Purple Loosestrife Common Buckthorn

Botanical Name

% Prevalence

Alliaria petiolata 5-25% Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Lonicera tatarica 5-25% Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% Alliaria petiolata 5-25% Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Rhamnus cathartica 25-50% Alliaria petiolata 1-5% Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Lonicera tatarica 1-5% Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Alliaria petiolata 25-50% Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Lonicera tatarica 0-1% Phalaris arundinacea 1-5% Alliaria petiolata 25-50% Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% Alliaria petiolata 25-50% Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% Alliaria petiolata 25-50% Arctium minus 25-50% Cirsium arvense 5-25% Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Alliaria petiolata 25-50% Arctium minus 25-50% Cirsium arvense 5-25% Glechoma hederacea 1-5% Phalaris arundinacea 5-25% Alliaria petiolata 25-50% Arctium minus 5-25% Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% Alliaria petiolata 25-50% Phalaris arundinacea 25-50% Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% Phalaris arundinacea 50-75% Amphicarpaea bracteata 5-25% Lythrum salicaria 5-25% Rhamnus cathartica 1-5%

Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Shore Zone Invasive Species Section Invasive Species O P P P P P Q Q Q Q Q Q R R R S S S T T T T U U U U V V V V W W W W X X X X Y Y Y Y

Reed Canary Grass Bull Thistle Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Curly Dock Common Burdock Bull Thistle Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Curly Dock Northern Catalpa Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Birdsfoot Trefoil Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Common Burdock Canada Thistle Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Common Burdock Purple Loosestrife Common Buckthorn Narrow Leaf Cattail Garlic Mustard Common Burdock Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Garlic Mustard Common Burdock Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Garlic Mustard Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn Garlic Mustard Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary Grass Common Buckthorn

Botanical Name Phalaris arundinacea Cirsium vulgare Lythrum salicaria Phalaris arundinacea Rhamnus cathartica Rumex crispus Arctium minus Cirsium vulgare Lythrum salicaria Phalaris arundinacea Rhamnus cathartica Rumex crispus Catalpa speciosa Lythrum salicaria Phalaris arundinacea Lotus corniculatus Lythrum salicaria Phalaris arundinacea Arctium minus Cirsium arvense Phalaris arundinacea Rhamnus cathartica Arctium minus Lythrum salicaria Rhamnus cathartica Typha angustifolia Alliaria petiolata Arctium minus Phalaris arundinacea Rhamnus cathartica Alliaria petiolata Arctium minus Phalaris arundinacea Rhamnus cathartica Alliaria petiolata Lythrum salicaria Phalaris arundinacea Rhamnus cathartica Alliaria petiolata Lythrum salicaria Phalaris arundinacea Rhamnus cathartica

% Prevalence 50-75% 0-1% 5-25% 0-1% 5-25% 0-1% 0-1% 0-1% 5-25% 0-1% 5-25% 0-1% 1-5% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 1-5% 25-50% 0-1% 1-5% 25-50% 1-5% 0-1% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 25-50% 5-25% 5-25% 25-50% 5-25% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5% 5-25% 1-5% 1-5% 1-5%

42

Bank Zone Survey Results Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Bank Zone Native Species Section Predominant Vegetation Botanical Name A B C C D D E F G G H H I I J J L M O P Q Q R W X Y

Giant Bur-reed Giant Bur-reed Giant Bur-reed Soft Stem Bulrush Giant Bur-reed Water Smartweed Giant Bur-reed Stinging Nettle Giant Bur-reed Stinging Nettle Giant Bur-reed Stinging Nettle Giant Bur-reed Water Smartweed Giant Bur-reed Lake Sedge Lake Sedge Giant Bur-reed Giant Bur-reed Broadleaf Arrowhead Broadleaf Arrowhead Giant Bur-reed Lake Sedge Giant Bur-reed Giant Bur-reed Giant Bur-reed

Sparganium eurycarpum Sparganium eurycarpum Sparganium eurycarpum Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Sparganium eurycarpum Polygonum amphibium Sparganium eurycarpum Urtica dioica Sparganium eurycarpum Urtica dioica Sparganium eurycarpum Urtica dioica Sparganium eurycarpum Polygonum amphibium Sparganium eurycarpum Carex lacustris Carex lacustris Sparganium eurycarpum Sparganium eurycarpum Sagittaria latifolia Sagittaria latifolia Sparganium eurycarpum Carex lacustris Sparganium eurycarpum Sparganium eurycarpum Sparganium eurycarpum

Crosby Lake Vegetation Survey - Bank Zone Invasive Species % Prevalence 25% 80% 80% 25% 90% 25% 75% 25% 50% 25% 50% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 30%

Section Invasive Species A A A B C C D E F G G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P P Q Q Q R R R S S S T T T U U V V V V W W W X X X Y Y Y

NarrowLeaf Cattail Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary grass Purple Loosestrife Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary grass Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary grass Reed Canary grass Reed Canary grass Canada Thistle Reed Canary grass Canada Thistle NarrowLeaf Cattail Reed Canary grass Reed Canary grass NarrowLeaf Cattail Reed Canary grass NarrowLeaf Cattail Reed Canary grass NarrowLeaf Cattail NarrowLeaf Cattail Reed Canary grass Purple Loosestrife NarrowLeaf Cattail Purple Loosestrife NarrowLeaf Cattail Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary grass NarrowLeaf Cattail Purple Loosestrife NarrowLeaf Cattail Reed Canary grass Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary grass NarrowLeaf Cattail Purple Loosestrife NarrowLeaf Cattail Reed Canary grass Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary grass NarrowLeaf Cattail NarrowLeaf Cattail Reed Canary grass Reed Canary grass Purple Loosestrife NarrowLeaf Cattail Sow Thistle Purple Loosestrife NarrowLeaf Cattail Reed Canary grass Reed Canary grass Purple Loosestrife NarrowLeaf Cattail NarrowLeaf Cattail Purple Loosestrife Reed Canary grass

Botanical Name Typha angustifolia Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Cirsium arvense Phalaris arundinacea Cirsium arvense Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Typha angustifolia Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Typha angustifolia Lythrum alicaria Typha angustifolia Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Typha angustifolia Lythrum alicaria Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Typha angustifolia Lythrum alicaria Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea Typha angustifolia Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Typha angustifolia Sonchus arvensis Lythrum alicaria Typha angustifolia Phalaris arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Lythrum alicaria Typha angustifolia Typha angustifolia Lythrum alicaria Phalaris arundinacea

% Prevalence 70% 10% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 75% 10% 25% 10% 25% 40% 10% 25% 40% 60% 40% 40% 30% 30% 40% 40% 40% 50% 25% 15% 15% 50% 5% 15% 25% 40% 50% 25% 60% 20% 50% 20% 60% 25% 30% 40% 25% 50% 25% 1% 15% 50% 25% 25% 5% 10% 20% 5% 25%

43

February 15, 2017 Board Meeting

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 9, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Maddie Vargo, Water Resource Technician William Street Pond Iron Enhanced Sand Filter (IESF) Report

IV. Special Reports B) William Street Pond Iron Enhanced Sand Filter (IESF) Report (Vargo)

Background In 2011, the District completed a retrofit of the William Street Pond in partnership with the City of Roseville.

The retrofit project included dredging sediment from the pond, installing a baffle at the pond inlet, and installing 2 iron-enhanced sand filters (IESF) at the pond outlet. These filters were some of the first installed in the Twin Cities and the first ones in CRWD. The filters treat water from the surrounding subwatershed, which accounts for 17% of the drainage area of Lake McCarrons.

Beginning 2013, monitoring staff developed and implemented a monitoring protocol to assess the performance of the William Street Pond Retrofit Project, namely the installation of the iron enhanced sand filter (IESF). Three grab sample sites at William Street Pond were monitored from 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2016.

Issues Staff will review the William Street Pond IESF Performance Report at this Board meeting. The report review will highlight key findings from the assessment.

Requested Action Accept the William Street Pond IESF Performance Report.

Enc: William Street Pond IESF Performance Report.

W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\William Street Pond Monitoring\2013-2016 Memo & Analysis\Memos\Board Memo_WSP 02-15-17

William Street Pond Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter Performance Report - DRAFT February 2017

PREPARED BY: Capitol Region Watershed District

DATE: 02/01/2017

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 2017

Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... i Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iii

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 IESF as a Method of Phosphorus Reduction ............................................................................ 3 IESF at William Street Pond ..................................................................................................... 3 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 5 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Total Phosphorus ...................................................................................................................... 8 Statistical Results ........................................................................................................... 11 Orthophosphate ....................................................................................................................... 11 Statistical Results ........................................................................................................... 14 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 14 References ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix A: Parameter Result Tables .......................................................................................... 17 Appendix B: William Street Pond IESF As-Built ........................................................................ 20

Acronyms and Abbreviations BMP CRWD H0 Ha IESF L MCES MPCA mg Ortho-P QAPP SAFL TMDL TP WSP

Best Management Practice Capitol Region Watershed District Null Hypothesis Alternative Hypothesis Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter Liter Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Milligram Orthophosphate Quality Assurance Program Plan St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Total Maximum Daily Load Total Phosphorus William Street Pond

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

i

Definitions Best Management Practice – technique, measure, or structural control that is used for a given set of conditions to manage the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff in the most cost effective manner.

Grab sample – a water sample that is obtained by taking a single sample.

Impaired Waters – waters that are not meeting their designated uses because of excess pollutants violating water quality standards.

Orthophosphate – (PO43-) soluble, inorganic form of phosphorus that can be directly taken up by plants and algae Removal Efficiency – a percent that represents the value removed relative to the value that entered the system Stormwater – water that becomes runoff on a landscape during a precipitation event.

Subwatershed – a delineated area of land within a larger watershed where surface waters and runoff drain to a single point before ultimately discharging from the encompassing watershed.

Total Maximum Daily Load – the maximum amount of a substance that can be received by a water body while still meeting water quality standards. This may also refer to the allocation of acceptable portions of this load to different sources.

Total Phosphorus – measure of all forms of phosphorus, including dissolved and particulate; often the limiting nutrient for algal growth in oligo- and mesotrophic waters and thus the focus of many nutrient control programs Watershed – a delineated area of land where surface waters and runoff drain to a single point at a lower elevation.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report – Draft 2/1/17

ii

List of Tables

Table 1: Five number summary of total phosphorus, 2013-2016 .................................. 10 Table 2: Five number summary of orthophosphate results, 2013-2016 ........................ 13

List of Figures Figure 1: William Street Pond location within Lake McCarrons subwatershed ............... 2 Figure 2: Phosphorus Species ....................................................................................... 2 Figure 3: Iron-enhanced sand filter illustrations, North (top) and South (bottom). .......... 4 Figure 4: Monitoring Locations: Pond, North Filter, South Filter. .................................... 5 Figure 5: William Street Pond Level, Overflow Weir Elevation, and Daily University of Minnesota Climatological Observational Rain Gauge, (2013-2016). ............................... 7 Figure 6: Average annual removal efficiencies from influent to effluent for total phosphorus and orthophosphate ..................................................................................... 8 Figure 7: Total phosphorus concentrations of influent and effluent shown with event rainfall, 2013-2016 .......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 8: Average total phosphorus concentrations of influent and effluent by month, 2013-2016 ....................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 9: Total phosphorus boxplots of influent and effluent concentrations for 20132016 .............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 10: Orthophosphate concentrations of influent and effluent shown with event rainfall, 2013-2016 ........................................................................................................ 12 Figure 11: Average ortho-P concentrations of influent and effluent by month, 20132016 .............................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 12: Orthophosphate boxplots of influent and effluent concentrations for 20132016 .............................................................................................................................. 13

William Street Pond IESF Performance Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

iii

Introduction William Street Pond is a stormwater detention and sedimentation basin located in Roseville, MN. Originally converted from a wetland in 1990, the pond receives stormwater from the surrounding urbanized residential neighborhood and discharges directly to Lake McCarrons, a 75-acre deep lake that supports a variety of recreational opportunities.

Several projects have been implemented over the last 15 years in Lake McCarrons and its watershed to reduce the phosphorus load to the lake. In 2011, significant improvements were made at William Street Pond to improve the quality of the water being discharged to Lake McCarrons. These improvements included: 1. The installation of a SAFL Baffle at the pond inlet to dissipate the flow energy of the water entering the pond, remove suspended solids, and trap large debris.

2. The dredging of sediment from the pond to restore its original storage capacity and improve the ponds ability to settle suspended solids.

3. An outlet retrofit to include two iron-enhanced sand filters (IESF) that drain into an outlet structure with a weir overflow, which then flows to Lake McCarrons.

The goal of the IESF project at William Street Pond (WSP) is to prevent the excessive growth of algae and macrophytes in Lake McCarrons by binding phosphorus that would be otherwise discharged to the lake from the pond. Within the Lake McCarrons subwatershed, WSP accounts for the second highest phosphorus input, after the Villa Park Wetland system (Figure 1).

Background Phosphorus is an essential element to aquatic ecosystems. Total phosphorus (TP) is a measurement of both dissolved and particulate phosphorus (Figure 2). Total dissolved phosphorus represents all soluble phosphorus compounds, organic or inorganic; including orthophosphate. Orthophosphate (ortho-P) is the soluble, inorganic form of phosphorus that can be directly taken up by plants and algae. Excess phosphorus concentrations can cause eutrophication in freshwater lakes, which creates prime conditions for algal blooms and fish kills (Carpenter et al., 1998). Urban stormwater runoff is identified as a primary nonpoint source that contributes to increased phosphorus concentrations in urban lakes.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MCPA) Impaired Waters List identifies bodies of water that fail to meet water quality standards (MPCA, 2017). Once a water is added to this list, the MPCA conducts a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study to determine the sources of a pollutant and the maximum amount of a pollutant a water body can receive in order to meet water quality standards.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

1

Figure 1: William Street Pond location within Lake McCarrons subwatershed.

Orthophosphate Total Dissolved Phosphorus

Polyphosphates

Other Dissolved Phosphorous Total Phosphorus

Organice Phosphorus Compounds Other

Particulate Phosphorus

Figure 2: Phosphorus Species.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

2

Phosphorus is one of the primary concerns in Lake McCarrons and the surrounding watershed.

Currently, Lake McCarrons is not listed on the MPCA Impaired Waters List. The 2003 Lake McCarrons Management Plan (CRWD, 2003) identified a water quality target for TP at 0.033 mg/L 1 to minimize the risk of algal blooms. CRWD completed an aluminum sulfate treatment on Lake McCarrons in 2004 to help bind soluble phosphorus particles and reduce the amount of available phosphorus in the lake. To decrease external sediment and nutrient loading to the lake, improvements projects in 2004 and 2013 targeted the Villa Park Wetland System, a series of constructed wetland cells that treats 70% of the lake’s inputs (CRWD 2010).

IESF as a Method of Phosphorus Reduction To reduce the risks associated with elevated phosphorus concentrations, best management practices (BMPs) must focus on capturing not only particulate but also dissolved phosphorus species, like ortho-P (Erickson et al., 2012). Sand filtration is a common feature in BMPs to remove particulate matter in stormwater. Iron-enhanced sand filters include large beds of sand mixed with iron filings, the addition of which significantly increases the filter’s capacity to remove dissolved phosphorous. When water contacts an IESF, the oxidized iron filings remove a significant portion of phosphorus through surface sorption.

The “Minnesota IESF” (Erickson et al., 2012) was developed at the University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Laboratory by Gulliver, Erickson, and Weiss in 2005. An initial 2007 study indicated a 51-81% reduction in dissolved phosphorus in synthetic stormwater passed through columns of sand media enhanced with 2% granular steel wool, by weight (Weiss et al., 2007). A similar 2012 column study indicated, on average, an 88% reduction in dissolved phosphorus in synthetic stormwater passed through a sand media mixed with 5% iron filings, and 79% with 2% iron filings (Erickson et al., 2012).

The Minnesota IESF has been applied to many stormwater BMP projects throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Data collected in the years following the installation of filters in the cities of Prior Lake, Stillwater, and Maplewood, MN showed reductions of total phosphorus of 45% 2, 82%, and 75%, respectively (Erickson et al., 2015; Kill & Fleming, 2016; Erickson, 2012).

IESF at William Street Pond WSP features two IESF’s along the slopes of the pond near the pond outlet structure. Cross-sections of the North and South IESF at WSP are shown in Figure 3. Both filters feature a layer of coarse filter aggregate underneath sand and iron-enhanced sand layers. The filters differ by the type of material

The Minnesota deep lake standard for TP is 0.040 mg/L. Percent phosphorus reduction of the Prior Lake IESF from 2013-2014 was 26%; after non-routine maintenance in 2014, percent reduction of phosphorus increased to 45% for remainder of 2014-2015.

1 2

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report – Draft 2/1/17

3

separating the filter media from the pond interface. The north filter features a barrier of crushed limestone cobble while the south filter features a 16â&#x20AC;? diameter Pyramat roll.

When the pond level fluctuates during a storm event to an elevation greater than 886.25 ft., water flows onto and through the pond banks and drains down through the iron-enhanced sand layer. Water flows to the underlying drain tiles within the filters, which then flows to the outlet structure. A weir is in place in the outlet to allow water to bypass the filter beds under higher stormflow conditions to prevent flooding.

Both the weir and the two drain tiles empty into a sump before leaving the outlet structure and flowing to Lake McCarrons.

Figure 3: Iron-enhanced sand filter illustrations, South (top) and North (bottom).

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

4

Methods CRWD staff designed and implemented a monitoring plan to assess the efficacy of the iron-enhanced sand filters for phosphorus removal. Grab samples were collected from 2013 to 2016 in sets of three: one influent sample (WSP Pond) and two effluent locations (WSP – North Filter, WSP – South Filter) (Figure 4). Each sampling set was collected at the same time within 24 hours of storm events greater than 0.5 inches.

Pond Monitoring Location

North and South Filter Monitoring Location

Figure 4: Monitoring Locations: Pond, North Filter, South Filter.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report – Draft 2/1/17

5

Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) performed the chemical analysis for all samples.

The samples were analyzed for a suite of characteristics, with TP and ortho-P being most pertinent to this study. MCES reporting limits were 0.02 mg/L for TP and 0.005 mg/L for ortho-P. For concentrations at or below the reporting limit, the reporting limit was used in the analysis.

Rainfall data was collected using the University of Minnesota St. Paul Climatological Observatory 15minute rainfall dataset. Water level data in WSP was recorded by CRWD using a Global Water pressure transducer level logger. Level observances were recorded every ten minutes from approximately April through November.

Effluent water quality data were analyzed as an average of WSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; North Filter and WSP â&#x20AC;&#x201C; South Filter, unless otherwise noted. Removal efficiencies were calculated for all samples collected, as shown in Equation 1:

đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x;đ?&#x2018;&#x; đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019; (%) =

đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;

đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;

đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?. ďż˝ đ??żđ??ż ďż˝â&#x2C6;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?. ďż˝ đ??żđ??ż ďż˝ Ă&#x2014; đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161;đ?&#x2018;&#x161; đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013; đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?đ?&#x2018;?. ďż˝ ďż˝ đ??żđ??ż

100%

(Eq. 1)

A one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used in order to determine whether a conclusion was significant. This test evaluates two independent groups to determine whether one group tends to produce larger values than the second (Helsel & Hirsch, 2002). This test is non-parametric, and therefore appropriate for this study as the data does not follow a normal distribution. The tests were run with R software using a confidence interval of 95%. The resultant p-values were evaluated to be significant at values less than or equal to an alpha value of 0.05.

Results The TP and ortho-P results, sample dates, and associated rainfalls for samples collected from 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2016 are listed in Appendix A. A total of 29 sampling events occurred during the surveying period.

University of Minnesota daily precipitation and pond level response is shown in Figure 5. The median TP and ortho-P reduction are 70.4% and 67.5%, respectively (Figure 6).

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

6

Figure 5: The 2013-2016 William Street Pond Level, Overflow Weir Elevation, and Daily University of Minnesota Climatological Observational Rain Gauge.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

7

100% 90% 80% 80.0%

81.2%

70% 68.8%

60% 50%

67.5%

70.8%

70.0% 62.7%

55.7%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2013

2014

2015 TP

2016

ortho-P

Figure 6: Average annual removal efficiencies from influent to effluent for TP and ortho-P.

Ninety-seven percent of samples taken during the sample period showed a reduction of TP (Figure 7).

Similar reductions were observed for ortho-P, with 48% of the effluent samples being analyzed under the reporting limit (Figure A-2). Further, effluent samples from the filters showed very consistent TP and ortho-P concentrations, with no apparent correlation to the amount of rainfall or the influent concentration (Figures 8 & 10). Specific results for TP and ortho-P are described in the following subsections.

Total Phosphorus TP results and removal efficiencies for the 2013-2016 sampling period are presented in Table A-1 in Appendix A. TP concentration results and corresponding event precipitation records are shown in Figure 7. Influent TP fluctuated throughout the years. Despite influent fluctuations, effluent concentrations largely remained the same. Only one sample (8/7/2013) measured a TP effluent higher than the influent concentration; however, the influent concentration was very low, and the resulting effluent was within the normal range of values. Neither influent nor effluent are significantly correlated to precipitation. No influent or effluent samples returned concentration values less than the reporting limit of 0.05 mg/L. Monthly average TP concentrations are shown in Figure 8. Influent TP concentrations are highest in the months of June and October, and lowest in early spring, late fall, and August. Effluent TP concentrations do not follow a similar pattern, and peak slightly in August and September.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

8

0.0

1 0.9

2.0 0.8 0.7 0.6

Rainfall (in)

TP (mg/L)

4.0

6.0

0.5 0.4

8.0 0.3 0.2 10.0 0.1

2013

2014 Rainfall

2015 Influent

10/27

10/5

8/12

7/6

6/9

6/15

5/11

9/18

11/19

8/19

7/28

7/13

6/23

5/27

10/2

9/22

9/10

9/5

6/20

6/17

5/20

4/30

10/16

10/3

8/7

8/30

8/5

7/15

12.0 7/10

0

2016

Effluent

Figure 7: Total phosphorus concentrations of influent and effluent shown with event rainfall, 2013-2016.

0.45 0.4 0.35

TP (mg/L)

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Average TP Influent

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Average TP Effluent

Figure 8: Average total phosphorus concentrations of influent and effluent by month, 2013-2016.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

9

A five number summary of TP sample results are shown in Table 1. These values are reflected in the TP boxplots shown in Figure 9. For TP, the median of influent samples was over 300% greater than median average effluent. The mean average effluent from both the north and south filters is six and a half standard deviations away from the mean influent value. Further, the 100th percentile of the effluent samples does not cross the 25th percentile of the influent samples. Both influent and effluent averages are greater than the medians, suggesting that both data sets are right skewed. There were no significant differences in performance between the two filters (alpha = 0.05).

Table 1: Five number summary of total phosphorus results, 2013-2016.

Influent TP Conc. (mg/L)

Average Median Min Max St.Dev.

0.307 0.255 0.109 0.900 0.177

N. Filter Effluent Conc. (mg/L)

0.083 0.073 0.032 0.146 0.034

S. Filter Effluent Conc. (mg/L)

0.097 0.094 0.037 0.196 0.038

Avg. Effluent Conc. (mg/L)

0.090 0.083 0.041 0.168 0.033

N. Filter Removal Efficiency (%)

64.2 72.0 -33.9 95.1 25.833

S. Filter Removal Efficiency (%)

Avg. Removal Efficiency (%)

59.2 62.8 0.9 92.4 23.4

61.7 67.5 -16.5 93.8 23.8

Figure 9: Total phosphorus boxplots of influent and effluent concentrations for 2013-2016.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

10

Statistical Results A one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was conducted to determine whether the decrease in TP from the influent samples to the effluent sample are statistically significant. The test was run with an alpha value of 0.05. The test hypotheses were constructed as follows: •

H0 Influent and effluent TP populations are similar, no improvement on water quality is made.

•

Ha Influent TP is higher than effluent TP, improvement observed

The resultant p-value for the difference in influent and effluent TP was 2.732E-10. As the p-value < alpha value, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Thus, there exists significant statistical evidence that the influent TP is higher than the effluent TP; therefore, the filters are effective at removing TP.

Orthophosphate Ortho-P results for 2013-2016 sample period are presented in Table A-2 in Appendix A. Ortho-P concentration results and corresponding event precipitation records are shown in Figure 10.

Three of twenty-seven influent samples (11%) were measured at or below the reporting limit for ortho-P (0.005 mg/L). Twenty-seven of the 56 north and south filter effluent samples results (48%) were measured at or below the reporting limit. Three samples resulted in ortho-P concentrations at or under the reporting limit for all three event samples. All three occasions occurred during the month of October. There is no significant correlation between precipitation and influent or effluent samples.

Numerous spikes can be observed in the influent sample concentrations throughout the sampling period (Figure 10). Effluent samples remain at a low, consistent level throughout the sampling period, slightly responding to influent spikes. Only two sampling sets produced higher ortho-P effluent concentrations than influent concentrations (5/20/2014 & 7/28/2015). On these occasions, the influent concentrations were measured to be at or under the reporting limit, and the effluent concentrations were consistent with other results observed throughout the sampling period.

Average monthly ortho-P concentrations are shown in Figure 11. Influent and effluent ortho-P average concentrations follow similar trends. Both influent and effluent samples exhibit the highest average ortho-P concentrations during the months of May and June. Ortho-p concentrations dip during the fall months. This is expected, as ortho-P measures soluble and reactive types of phosphorus. This subset of phosphorus is most available in wetlands and ponds in the spring in early summer when primary productivity is highest.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report – Draft 2/1/17

11

0.140

0.0

0.120

2.0

0.100

0.080 6.0 0.060

Rainfall (in)

ortho-P (mg/L)

4.0

8.0 0.040 10.0

0.020

2013

2014

2015

Rainfall

Influent

10/27

10/5

8/12

7/6

6/15

6/9

5/11

11/19

9/18

8/19

7/28

7/13

6/23

5/27

10/2

9/22

9/5

9/10

6/20

6/17

5/20

4/30

10/16

10/3

8/30

8/7

8/5

7/15

12.0 7/10

0.000

2016

Effluent

Figure 10: Orthophosphate concentrations of influent and effluent shown with event rainfall, 2013-2016.

0.09 0.08 0.07

ortho-P (mg/L)

0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Average ortho-P Influent

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Average ortho-P Effluent

Figure 11: Average ortho-P concentrations of influent and effluent by month, 2013-2016.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

12

A five number summary of ortho-P sample results is shown in Table 2. These values are visualized in the ortho-P boxplots in Figure 12. The median influent concentration is 3.5 times the median average effluent concentration. The mean influent concentration is 3.6 standard deviations higher than the mean average effluent concentration. Further, the 100th percentile of the effluent samples does not cross the influent median value. The mean values for influent, north filter, and south filter concentrations are higher than the corresponding median values, suggesting that the data is right skewed.

Table 2: Five number summary of orthophosphate results, 2013-2016.

Influent ortho-P Conc. (mg/L)

Average Median Min Max St.Dev.

0.033 0.021 0.005 0.122 0.030

N. Filter Effluent Conc. (mg/L)

0.007 0.005 0.005 0.022 0.004

S. Filter Effluent Conc. (mg/L)

0.012 0.006 0.005 0.046 0.011

Avg. Effluent Conc. (mg/L)

0.009 0.006 0.005 0.034 0.007

N. Filter S. Filter Avg. Removal Removal Removal Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency (%) (%) (%)

58.9 71.2 0.0 92.9 32.4

44.0 57.7 -180.0 92.9 53.7

51.4 69.4 -90.0 92.9 40.7

Figure 12: Orthophosphate boxplots of influent and effluent concentrations for 2013-2016.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

13

Statistical Results A one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was conducted to determine whether the decrease in ortho-P from the influent samples to the effluent sample are statistically significant. The test was run with an alpha value of 0.05. The test hypotheses were constructed as follows: •

H0 Influent and effluent ortho-P populations are similar, no improvement on water quality is made.

•

Ha Influent ortho-P is higher than effluent ortho-P, improvement observed

The resultant p-value for the difference in influent and effluent total phosphorus was 1.08E-04. As the p-value < alpha value, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Thus, there exists significant statistical evidence that the influent ortho-P is higher than the effluent ortho-P; therefore, the filters are effectively treating stormwater for ortho-P.

Conclusions The iron-enhanced sand filters installed at the William St. Pond are successfully reducing the amount of phosphorus entering Lake McCarrons. Assessing their effectiveness with a simple removal efficiency statistic would indicate a four-year median of 70.4% TP and 67.5% ortho-P removed. The 70.4% TP removal efficiency is within the range of cited removal statistics for other IESF implementations in the Twin Cities area. For all years, the IESF benches produced consistent, low-phosphorus effluent.

Further, the majority of effluent ortho-P results were measured at or below the reporting limit.

Influent sample concentrations for both TP and ortho-P both exhibited spikes throughout the respective sampling periods; however, the dates of ortho-P influent spikes do not match the dates of the TP influent spikes. This suggests that factors contributing to TP and ortho-P cycling in the pond have differencing seasonality. Ortho-P spikes generally occurred in early summer when primary productivity in ponds are highest. TP spikes occur later in summer and early fall. Since TP is a measure of both particulate and dissolved phosphorus, the later summer spikes accurately indicate plant senescence and phytoplankton breakdown.

Effluent concentrations exhibit no correlation with influent concentrations or rainfall totals. This suggests that the contact time with the iron is sufficient to achieve near maximum reductions in phosphorus concentrations. It suggests that the IESFs have not yet shown signs of reaching their maximum phosphorus adsorption capacity or lifespan. It also may suggest that the benches are able to accommodate a higher phosphorus loading than what has been evaluated in the events included in this analysis.

The ortho-P results are slightly less conclusive than the TP results, as indicated by a slightly larger Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value and a smaller average removal efficiency statistic. Nearly 50% of ortho-P William Street Pond IESF Performance Report – Draft 2/1/17

14

effluent values were reported at or under the reporting limit. The observed decrease in the ortho-P set from the effluent as compared to influent may have been greater if these values were known, instead of being reported as “<0.05.”

Continued monitoring at William Street Pond will assure the continued performance of the IESFs. Additionally, it may help develop an estimate of the length of time that the benches will remain effective before needing replacement or maintenance, as their capacity to precipitate phosphorus will gradually become exhausted.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report – Draft 2/1/17

15

References Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2003. Lake McCarrons Management Plan. Saint Paul, MN. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2010. Villa Park Wetland System Management Plan. Saint Paul, MN. Carpenter, Stephen R., et al. "Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen."

Ecological applications 8.3 (1998): 559-568.

Erickson, Andrew J., John S. Gulliver, and Peter T. Weiss. "Capturing phosphates with iron enhanced sand filtration." Water research 46.9 (2012): 3032-3042.

Erickson, Andrew J., John S. Gulliver, and Peter T. Weiss. "Monitoring an Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter Trench for the Capture of Phosphate from Stormwater Runoff." (2015).

Erickson, Andrew J. “Removing Dissolved Pollutants from Stormwater Runoff.” St. Anthony Falls Labortory, University of Minnesota. Presentation October 3, 2012. (2012) Helsel, D.R. & Hirsch, R. M. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Vol. 49. Elsevier, 1992.

Kill, Karen & Fleming, Ryan. “Pump and Treat Iron Enhanced Stormwater Treatment.” Brown’s Creek watershed District & EOR, Minnesota Water Resources Conference, 18 October 2016. St. Paul, MN. Conference Presentation Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 2017. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) projects.

Accessed online from https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/total-maximum-daily-load-tmdlprojects#draft-pending-projects-bc254d6d Weiss, Peter T., John S. Gulliver, and Andrew J. Erickson. "Cost and pollutant removal of storm-water treatment practices." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 133.3 (2007): 218-229.

William Street Pond IESF Performance Report – Draft 2/1/17

16

APPENDIX A. Parameter Results Tables

William Street Pond IESF Performance Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17 17

Table A-1: 2013-2016 William Street Pond TP results.

0.054

N. Filter Removal Efficiency (%) 78.1

S. Filter Removal Efficiency (%) 62.8

Avg. Removal Efficiency (%) 70.5

0.087

88.3

92.4

90.4

0.079

82.8

78.4

80.6

0.127

-33.9

0.9

-16.5

0.116

0.128

19.5

33.3

26.4

0.114

0.114

35.8

35.2

35.5

0.111

0.129

0.120

59.0

52.4

55.7

0.048

0.037

0.043

56.8

66.7

61.7

0.041

0.043

77.1

78.6

77.9

0.032

0.05

0.041

95.1

92.4

93.8

0.062

0.049

0.056

86.6

89.4

88.0

0.167

0.073

0.136

0.105

56.3

18.6

37.4

0.51

0.083

0.075

0.079

83.7

85.3

84.5

9/22/14

0.272

0.121

0.156

0.139

55.5

42.6

49.1

10/2/14

0.535

0.09

0.074

0.082

83.2

86.2

84.7

0.73

5/27/15

0.462

0.074

0.102

0.088

84.0

77.9

81.0

0.43

6/23/15

0.257

0.072

0.094

0.083

72.0

63.4

67.7

1.98

7/13/15

0.226

0.049

0.098

0.074

78.3

56.6

67.5

1.08

7/28/15

0.229

0.10

0.123

0.113

55.0

46.3

50.7

1.11

8/19/15

0.242

0.140

0.196

0.168

42.1

19.0

30.6

1.27

9/18/15

0.255

0.141

0.170

0.156

44.7

33.3

39.0

0.11

11/19/15

0.178

0.048

0.059

0.054

73.0

66.9

69.9

0.69

5/11/16

0.181

0.057

0.078

0.068

68.5

56.9

62.7

0.75

6/9/16

0.144

0.054

0.076

0.065

62.5

47.2

54.9

1.43

6/15/16

0.429

0.060

0.091

0.076

86.0

78.8

82.4

2.52

7/6/16

0.301

0.124

0.117

0.121

58.8

61.1

60.0

3.32

8/12/16

0.193

0.101

0.098

0.100

47.7

49.2

48.4

0.6

10/5/16

0.278

0.057

0.059

0.058

79.5

78.8

79.1

0.75

10/27/16

0.412

0.056

0.135

0.096

86.4

67.2

76.8

0.183

N. Filter Effluent Conc. (mg/L) 0.040

S. Filter Effluent Conc. (mg/L) 0.068

0.900

0.105

0.068

8/5/13

0.408

0.070

0.088

8/7/13

0.109

0.146

0.108

0.67

8/30/13

0.174

0.140

1.45

10/3/13

0.176

0.113

1.28

10/16/13

0.271

4.19

4/30/14

0.111

1.81

5/20/14

0.192

0.044

0.45

6/17/14

0.658

3.16

6/20/14

0.464

0.27

9/5/14

0.81

9/10/14

0.23 0.63

Rainfall (in.)

Sampling Date

Influent TP Conc. (mg/L)

0.78

7/10/13

1.69

7/15/13

0.55 0.31

Avg. Effluent Conc. (mg/L)

William Street Pond IESF Performance Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17 18

Table A-2: 2013-2016 William Street Pond orthophosphate results.

Rainfall

Sampling Date

0.78

07/10/13

Influent ortho-P Conc. (mg/L) 0.056

0.007

N. Filter Removal Efficiency (%) 83.9

1.69

07/15/13

0.036

0.005

0.007

0.006

86.1

80.6

83.3

0.55

08/05/13

0.03

0.007

0.005

0.006

76.7

83.3

80.0

0.31

08/07/13

0.03

0.005

0.005

0.005

83.3

83.3

83.3

0.67

08/30/13

0.01

0.005

0.005

0.005

50.0

50.0

50.0

1.45

10/03/13

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.28

10/16/13

0.008

0.006

0.007

0.007

25.0

12.5

18.8

4.19

4/30/14

0.014

0.005

0.006

0.006

64.3

57.1

60.7

1.81

5/20/14

0.005

0.005

0.007

0.006

0.0

-40.0

-20.0

0.45

6/17/14

0.079

0.009

0.023

0.016

88.6

70.9

79.7

0.27

9/5/14

0.012

0.005

0.005

0.005

58.3

58.3

58.3

0.81

9/10/14

0.019

0.005

0.005

0.005

73.7

73.7

73.7

0.23

9/22/14

0.024

0.005

0.005

0.005

79.2

79.2

79.2

0.63

10/2/14

0.016

0.005

0.005

0.005

68.8

68.8

68.8

0.73

5/27/15

0.122

0.022

0.046

0.034

82.0

62.3

72.1

0.43

6/23/15

0.049

0.005

0.013

0.009

89.8

73.5

81.6

1.98

7/13/15

0.045

0.005

0.02

0.013

88.9

55.6

72.2

1.08

7/28/15

0.005

0.005

0.014

0.010

0.0

-180.0

-90.0

1.11

8/19/15

0.02

0.007

0.005

0.006

65.0

75.0

70.0

1.27

9/18/15

0.008

0.006

0.005

0.006

25.0

37.5

31.3

0.11

11/19/15

0.022

0.008

0.011

0.010

63.6

50.0

56.8

0.69

5/11/16

0.102

0.013

0.023

0.018

87.3

77.5

82.4

0.75

6/9/16

0.065

0.005

0.033

0.019

92.3

49.2

70.8

1.43

6/15/16

0.042

0.011

0.032

0.022

73.8

23.8

48.8

2.52

7/6/16

0.07

0.005

0.005

0.005

92.9

92.9

92.9

3.32

8/12/16

0.01

0.011

0.011

50.0

45.0

47.5

0.6

10/5/16

0.02 0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.75

10/25/16

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.0

0.0

0.0

N. Filter Effluent Conc. (mg/L) 0.009

S. Filter Effluent Conc. (mg/L) 0.005

Avg. Effluent Conc. (mg/L)

S. Filter Removal Efficiency (%) 91.1

Avg. Removal Efficiency (%) 87.5

Datum at or below reporting limit

William Street Pond IESF Performance Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17 19

APPENDIX B. William Street Pond IESF As-Built

William Street Pond IESF Performance Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

20

William Street Pond IESF Performance Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

21

William Street Pond IESF Performance Reportâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Draft 2/1/17

22

February 15, 2017 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of February 1, 2017 DRAFT Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, February 1, 2017, 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

A)

Call to Order of Annual Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins Seitu Jones Shirley Reider Mary Texer Mike Thienes

B)

Staff Present Mark Doneux, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD Bob Fossum, CRWD Joe Sellner, CRWD Britta Suppes, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Public Attendees Lena Buggs, Ramsey Conservation District Alice Messer, City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda. Administrator Doneux requested the addition of Action Item V. F. Appoint Mary Lilly to Citizen Advisory Committee and V.G. Approve Reimbursement Allocation.

Motion 17-021: Approve the February 1, 2017agenda with addition of Action Item V. F. Appoint Mary Lilly to Citizen Advisory Committee and V.G. Approve Reimbursement Allocation.

Reider/Texer Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment

Ms. Buggs asked the Board to consider her as a direct link to Ramsey Conservation District. Ms. Buggs invited the Managers to attend the Ramsey Conservation Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Board Meeting that are held on the first Thursday of each month and plans to have outdoor meetings when weather allows.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates

No Permits.

IV.

Special Reports

No Special Reports.

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

V.

Action Items A)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the January 18, 2017 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 17-022: Approve Minutes of the January 18, 2017 Regular Meeting.

Reider/Jones Unanimously approved B)

AR:

Approve Victoria Park Water Feature Preliminary Design Grant (Fossum)

Mr. Fossum reviewed that at the August 3, 2011 Board Meeting, the Managers approved a planning grant for the Victoria Park Hydrology Study for an amount not to exceed $50,000. This initiative falls under the District goal of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bringing Water Backâ&#x20AC;?. The District completed a hydrology study of the site that included concept water feature alternatives. In 2014, the City of St. Paul adopted the Victoria Park Master Plan, which included water features to be the centerpiece of the park.

Mr. Fossum introduced Ms. Alice Messer from the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department. Ms. Messer thanked the Board for allowing her to present the visionary plan of improvements at Victoria Park. Ms. Messer shared how the visionary plan includes year-round usage including a wetland pond that could be used for ice skating in the winter months. The design includes the first all accessible playground in St. Paul.

Discussions with City Parks staff have agreed that completing the preliminary design of the stormwater/water feature ahead of the design of the remainder of the planning park improvements would be the best design approach. The water feature will be located at the lowest point on the site and finalizing its location and elevation in the initial design process would be critical.

Manager Jones asked if there is an artist involved with part of the design team. Ms. Messer and Mr. Fossum replied that they will confirm the involvement of an artist. The Managers thanked Ms. Messer for her presentation.

Motion 17-023: Approve funding of $75,000 for Victoria Park Stormwater Feature Preliminary Design Project and Authorize Administrator to execute a grant agreement with the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department.

Reider/Jones Unanimously approved C)

AR:

Approve Data Analysis and Reporting Tool Project (Suppes)

Ms. Suppes reviewed that CRWD implemented the Kisters WISKI database in 2014 to house all historical monitoring data and for expanded data analysis and QA/QC capabilities. Kisters was selected as the consultant for the database after an exhaustive evaluation and selection process. The WISKI database sets CRWD up for improvements in data reporting, viewing, and availability. Historically, monitoring data has been delivered annually in our annual stormwater and lakes monitoring reports. These reports have been provided to our multiple audiences as a packaged, static, standalone product that represents one year of data. Subsequently, there is no continuity between years for each monitoring station which limits long-term analysis capabilities.

Also, the assembly of each report is time consuming and requires multiple staff persons. Most importantly, our audiences have expressed that the reports arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t providing the information they need and that the data is Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

difficult to access. It is the District’s goal to improve the reporting of monitoring data. In the 2014 Monitoring Program Review, Recommendation 4 states: “Complete a comprehensive evaluation of and implement improvements to the District’s reporting methods with focus on format, analysis types, generation of figures/tables, data cleaning”.

Instead of annual printed reports, staff would like to develop an online, user-driven, interactive, map-based Data Analysis & Reporting Tool (DART) that interfaces with the WISKI database. The primary goal of DART is to create a dynamic data reporting tool that provides: data visualization and user interaction; expanded statistical and spatial analysis capabilities; instant, customizable reporting and data downloading/exporting; real-time data viewing; and a tool that assists in meeting annual reporting requirements. The DART can be accessed online by our users and will allow interaction using a map-based interface with multiple data querying options.

Staff have requested a Statement of Work from Kisters North America for developing the DART. Kisters NA is the only consultant able to complete this work with their proprietary WISKI software. Staff have also been working with Computer Revolution (CRWD’s IT service provider) to develop a cost estimate for server upgrades that are necessary to host the DART. Manager Texer asked if the data can be exported in Xcel. Ms. Suppes replied that the data can be exported to generate tables and graphs.

Manager Jones asked if the data could be accessed on a phone application with the real-time data.

Administrator Doneux replied that updates are being made to the website. President Collins suggested working with the Science Museum for testing the real-time reporting.

Motion 17-024: Approve development of DART with a project budget not to exceed $55,000 and authorize Administrator to execute an agreement with Kisters North America based on the Statement of Work, dated 1/25/2017.

Texer/Reider Unanimously approved D)

AR:

Approve 2017 Lake Monitoring Agreement with Ramsey County (Suppes)

Ms. Suppes reviewed that Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW) has been conducting in-lake water quality testing on all Ramsey County lakes, including CRWD’s 5 District Lakes (Como, Crosby, Little Crosby, Loeb, McCarrons). Lake monitoring data collected by RCPW includes: Ammonia Nitrogen, Chloride, Chlorophyll-a, Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen, pH, Phytoplankton Community Analysis, Secchi Disk Depth, Soluble Reactive Phosphorus, Specific Conductivity, Temperature, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Turbidity, and Zooplankton Community Analysis. In 2016, RCPW formalized the annual contract process by developing an annual cooperative agreement with assistance from the Ramsey County Attorney, which was approved by the Board on March 10, 2016 for all 2016 services. This same annual contract from RCPW is being proposed for all 2017 lake water quality sampling and requires approval.

Motion 17-025: Approve 2017 Lake Monitoring Agreement with Ramsey County.

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

Unanimously approved E)

AR:

Approve Lake McCarrons AIS Plan agreement with Wenck Associates (Sellner)

Mr. Sellner shared a presentation with the Managers. In 2014 and 2015, the District participated in aquatic plant harvesting in Lake McCarrons. During the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work on harvesting aquatic plants, it became apparent that consideration of aquatic invasive species (AIS) is an important aspect of active management of all biota in the lake. On August 3, 2016 the Board of Managers authorized staff to seek proposal(s) for the development of a Lake McCarrons AIS Plan.

Aquatic invasive species continue to be a concern and potential threat to all lakes in CRWD. As the only lake with a public boat launch, Lake McCarrons is likely the most prone to introduction of aquatic invasive species.

District staff have worked with Wenck Associates to develop a scope of work for a Lake McCarrons AIS plan.

Mr. Sellner reviewed the proposed scope of work with the Managers.

Motion 17-026: Approve scope of work and budget for Lake McCarrons AIS Plan; and authorize Administrator to execute a consultant services agreement with Wenck Associates for an amount not to exceed $20,000.

Thienes/Reider Unanimously approved F)

AR:

Appoint Mary Lilly to citizen Advisory committee (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux shared an application was received on January 31, 2017 from Mary Lilly requesting to join the Citizen Advisory Committee. Ms. Lilly is a resident of St. Paul. Ms. Lilly has experience working as an Educator and Administrator for the University of Minnesota. Her experiences include serving on several nonprofit boards including Cable Natural History Museum, Junior League of Minneapolis, Minnesota Humanities Commission, Fly Fishing Women of Minnesota, and Friends School Minnesota.

Manager Thienes remembered meeting Ms. Lilly at the Blooming St. Paul Awards and encouraged her to join the CAC. Motion 17-027: Appoint Mary Lilly to the Citizens Advisory Committee.

Reider/Thienes Unanimously approved G)

AR:

Approve Reimbursement Allocation Resolution (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed that a bond will be needed to cover the expenses of the new building. The building will be purchased with fund balance. The resolution will allow reimbursement for expenses that occurred prior to the issuing of a bond.

President Collins asked if Attorney Jim Mogen has reviewed the Reimbursement Allocation. Administrator Doneux replied that yes, Attorney Mogen has reviewed.

Motion 17-028: Approve Reimbursement Allocation Resolution.

Reider/Thienes Unanimously approved Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Building Plan Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux shared with the Managers that a January closing was not able to happen. Right now, CRWD is waiting for a letter relative to the contamination on-sire from the MPCA. The closing is anticipated to happen in the next week.

The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Architect are scheduled for responses by Friday.

B) Snelling Midway Update (Eleria) Ms. Eleria provided a quick update for the Board of Managers that a forum was held on January 26, 2017 at CHS field. National Speakers were brought in from Washington, DC and Toronto, Canada. The morning agenda had presentations with panels from the City, Developer, Finance and Operation/Maintenance. Barr Engineering helped with the planning of the forum. The invitation list was limited. Manager Thienes and President Collins attended. Managers talked about adding additional discussions to the City of St. Paul Department Directors Meeting in April. Manager Thienes shared that return on investment is still a concern from the developer.

Manager Thienes shared that a sewer usage fee is billed differently in St. Paul vs. Minneapolis. In Minneapolis, the water usage and sewer fees are separated. Manager Jones asked how hard it would be to change the billing system. Those that attended the forum felt the discussions were very good and beneficial.

C) Hamline Midway Boulevard Rain Gardens Update (Eleria) Ms. Eleria gave an update to the Board of Managers on the Hamline Midway Boulevard Rain Gardens. Ms. Eleria has requested quotes for ten rain gardens. At the March meeting Ms. Eleria will have the new BMP Specialist present the quotes that will be an estimated $50,000.

VII.

General Information A).

Administrator’s Report (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux noted that he recently met with the 4M fund balance Manager. Optional investment funds were presented. Administrator Doneux will review with Manager Thienes.

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, February 8, 2017 CAC Meeting – President Collins plans to attend B) Wednesday, February 15, 2017 Board Meeting President Collins noted that Administrator Doneux’s annual review will take place in February or March.

Manager Thienes noted that he will be traveling from Feb. 16th to Feb. 23rd and again March 27th to May. Manager Thienes will return and plans to be attending the May 3rd meeting.

Administrator Doneux asked the Board of Managers for a tentative date to plan the City of St. Paul Department Directors meeting. The Board agreed on April 12th. Administrator Doneux will confirm the date with Wes Saunders-Pearce.

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

Motion 17-029: Adjournment of the February 1, 2017 Regular Board Meeting at 7:24 p.m.

Texer/Reider Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander W:\04 Board of Managers\Minutes\2017\February 1, 2017 Board Meeting DRAFT.docx

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

February 15, 2017 Board Meeting V. Action Items â&#x20AC;&#x201C; B) Accounts Payable & Budget Update (Sylvander)

DATE: February 9, 2017 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager RE: January 2017 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Administrative/Program Budget Report _________________________________________________________________________________ Background Enclosed are the Accounts Payable/Receivable and the Administrative/Program Budget Reports for the Month of January 2017.

Issues Summary of Accounts Payable/Receivable Report: (Total Expenses)

Accts Payable Accounts Receivable

Summary of Preliminary Budget Report: (January Expenses)

Administrative Budget Program Budget Project Budget Capital Improvement Budget Debt Service TOTAL

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$478,426.61 $264,164.12 $49,758.61 $72,221.90 $53,411.27 $248,795.16 253,671.88 $677,858.82

2017 Operations and CIP Monthly YTD Expenditures to Budget $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $Jan

Feb

March

Operations Expenditures

April

May

Jun

Operations Budget

July

August

Sept

CIP Expenditures

Oct

Nov

Dec

CIP Budget

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

Request Action Approve January 2017 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report, direct Treasurer and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments. enc:

January 2017 Accounts Payable January 2017 Preliminary Budget Report

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Board Memos\Board Memos 2017\BD Memo AP Budget Report 2.15.17.docx

2

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From February 1, 2017 - February 28, 2017

Date 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17 02/15/17

Payee Al's Coffee Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Barr Engineering Benefit Extras, Inc. Benefit Extras, Inc. BKBM Engineers C Lanphear Design City of St. Paul PED Comcast Business Comcast Business - Internet Computer Revolution Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Energy Park Plaza Engineering & Construction Innovations Fleet One, LLC Ford Motor Credit Forrest J. Kelley Golith Hydro-Vac, Inc. Gray Line HealthPartners Houston Engineering, Inc. Limno Tech Marco - Minolta Menards MetLife MN Pollution Control Agency Monitor NEDU LLC Pioneer Press Ramsey Conservation District Ramsey County-Attorney Ramsey Washington Metro WD Redpath & Company, Ltd. Sarah Wein SRF Consulting, Inc. St. Paul Publishing Co. St. Paul Stamp Works Inc. Staples Business Advantage Suburban Auto Body, Inc. Sustainable Business Syscon, Inc. TCB Marketing, Inc. University of MN-Career Fair Urban Homeworks Vacker, Inc. Verizon Wireless Walters Waste Management Wenck Associates Xcel Energy Xylem, Inc. US Bank

January A/P:

Amount

Check Total

$21.53 3,089.13 47,620.28 371.00 71.00 5,037.50 65.22 11,700.00 635.94 472.78 2,180.01 750.00 9,386.96 199,882.80 52.93 454.44 800.00 4,950.00 475.20 16,284.19 7,145.00 13,260.00 119.51 220.41 804.98 1,125.00 65.00 6,350.00 269.90 30,620.00 4,191.50 1,000.00 2,387.00 89.92 3,384.65 100.00 125.28 445.85 2,068.48 95.00 2,636.25 168.00 200.00 1,870.00 235.00 385.52 31.22 45.42 12,127.77 571.00 693.91 2,184.93

$21.53 3,089.13 47,620.28 371.00 71.00 5,037.50 65.22 11,700.00 635.94 472.78 2,180.01 750.00 9,386.96 199,882.80 52.93 454.44 800.00 4,950.00 475.20 16,284.19 7,145.00 13,260.00 119.51 220.41 804.98 1,125.00 65.00 6,350.00 269.90 30,620.00 4,191.50 1,000.00 2,387.00 89.92 3,384.65 100.00 125.28 445.85 2,068.48 95.00 2,636.25 168.00 200.00 1,870.00 235.00 385.52 31.22 45.42 12,127.77 571.00 693.91 2,184.93

$399,317.41

$399,317.41

Page 1 of 2

Check # 17948 17949 17950 17951 17952 17953 17954 17955 17956 17957 17958 17959 17960 17961 17962 17963 17964 17965 17966 17967 17968 17969 17970 17971 17972 17973 17974 17975 17976 17977 17978 17979 17980 17981 17982 17983 17984 17985 17986 17987 17988 17989 17990 17991 17992 17993 17994 17995 17996 17997 17998 17999

Year

2016

Description Oasis Cooler Filter Professional Services January Engineering Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Como Park Hight School/Study Business Cards Raingarden/Drywell Phone Service Phone/Internet Computer/Managed Services 2016 Disclosure Reporting Office Rent Payment Application #3 Fuel for Truck 2014 Focus Office Cleaning Manholes/Interceptor & Arlington Site Tour Employee Benefits Stormwater Master Plan Quality Analysis of Como Copier Lease Supplies Employee Benefits Site Testing Web Ad/BMP Specialist Surety Return Legal Notices Shoreline Study-2016 Legal Fees-New Office Waterfest 2017 Sponsorship Monthly Accounting Employee Reimbursement Management Plan/Feasibility Internship Website Ad Name Badges/Stamps Office Supplies Repairs to Ford Focus Urban BMP Specialist Ad Sage Support Intern Ad in Hmong Times Registration/Career Fair Raingarden Stewardship/422 Charles Signage & Install Wireless Service Recycling Service Trash Service January Engineering Monthly Utilities Equipment Repairs Monthly Credit Card

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From February 1, 2017 - February 28, 2017

Date

Payee

January Payroll/Benefits JANUARY TOTAL:

Amount

Check Total

$79,109.20

$79,109.20

$478,426.61

$478,426.61

Check #

Year

Description

APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:

2/15/2017

JANUARY, 2017 RECEIPTS

MN State Jewish Community Center Permit #16033 Willow - #16016 Miscellaneous Ramsey County 4M Fund

180,197.58 2,000.00 2,000.00 6,230.00 92.92 71,431.45 2,212.17

JANUARY RECEIPTS:

$264,164.12

Grant Income Permit Fee Permit Fee Surety Miscellaneous Income Tax Levy Settlement-Final January Interest

Page 2 of 2

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2017 - JANUARY 31, 2017 2017 ANNUAL BUDGET

JOB COST #/NAME 16970 - General Administration 16 17970 - General Administration 16 00000 - Administration Allocation TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 200 - Administration 201 - Groundwater 207 - Rulemaking/Rule Revisions 208 - Permitting 210 - Stewardship Grants 211 - Monitoring & Data Collection 220 - Education & Outreach 225 - Technical Resources & Information Sharing 228 - Innovative BMP's Research 230 - Geographic Informatin Systems (GIS) 240 - Safety Program TOTAL PROGRAMS: 300 - Administration 301 - Shoreline & Streambank Maintenance 305 - Como Lake Subwatershed 310 - Lake McCarron's Subwatershed 313 - Loeb lake Subwatershed 315 - Trout Brook Subwatershed 317 - Crosby Lake Subwatershed 325 - Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 330 - Mississippi River Subwatershed 370 - Watershed Plan Audit TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 401 - Shoreline & Streambank Restoration 405 - Como Lake BMP's 410 - Lake McCarron's BMP's 413 - Loeb Lake BMP's 415 - Trout Brook BMP's 417 - Crosby Lake BMP's 425 - Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 430 - Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMP's 440 - Special Projects & Grants 450 - Future Trents: Implementation TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 15104 - Debt & Loan Service 15 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES: TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

670,120.00 (337,700.00) $332,420.00 222,882.00 7,160.00 308,720.00 503,840.00 574,340.00 425,990.00 40,540.00 79,840.00 35,250.00 31,370.00 $2,229,932.00 114,818.00 8,000.00 258,710.00 94,750.00 224,910.00 24,850.00 149,340.00 $875,378.00 $3,437,730.00 27,240.00 151,730.00 101,600.00 120,690.00 1,006,100.00 85,350.00 620,280.00 969,273.00 5,531,000.00 $8,613,263.00 368,918.00 $368,918.00 $12,419,911.00

Unaudited Fund Balance FUND BALANCES @ 12/31/16 Operations 1,721,517.99 Capital Improvement 4,402,601.14 Debt Service 80,677.41 TOTAL FUND BALANCE: $6,204,796.54

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 10,664.71 39,093.90 $49,758.61 60.12 23,623.06 17,912.34 18,239.35 11,096.82 94.89 1,108.38 86.94 $72,221.90 27,877.14 291.98 6,163.22 1,361.15 17,717.78 $53,411.27 $175,391.78 49.16 75.57 333.31 4,855.96 235,637.83 132.49 4,467.14 3,243.70 $248,795.16 253,671.88 $253,671.88

YEAR-TO-DATE EXPENDITURES 10,664.71 39,093.90 $49,758.61 60.12 23,623.06 17,912.34 18,239.35 11,096.82 94.89 1,108.38 86.94 $72,221.90 27,877.14 291.98 6,163.22 1,361.15 17,717.78 $53,411.27 $175,391.78 49.16 75.57 333.31 4,855.96 235,637.83 132.49 4,467.14 3,243.70 $248,795.16 253,671.88 $253,671.88

BALANCE OF BUDGET REMAINING (10,664.71) 631,026.10 (337,700.00) $282,661.39 222,882.00 7,099.88 285,096.94 485,927.66 556,100.65 414,893.18 40,445.11 78,731.62 35,163.06 31,370.00 $2,157,710.10 114,818.00 8,000.00 230,832.86 94,458.02 218,746.78 23,488.85 131,622.22 $821,966.73 $3,262,338.22 27,190.84 151,654.43 101,266.69 115,834.04 770,462.17 85,350.00 620,147.51 964,805.86 5,527,756.30 $8,364,467.84 115,246.12 $115,246.12

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED --5.83% 0.00% 14.97% 0.00% 0.84% --7.65% 3.56% 3.18% 2.60% 0.23% 1.39% 0.25% 0.00% 3.24% 0.00% 0.00% 10.78% 0.31% --2.74% 5.48% --11.86% --6.10% 5.10% 0.18% 0.05% 0.33% 4.02% 23.42% --0.00% 0.02% 0.46% 0.06% 2.89% 68.76% 68.76%

$677,858.82

$677,858.82

$11,742,052.18

5.46%

2017 Fund Transfers $0.00

Year-to-Date Revenue 4,733.44 1,544.26 27.29 $6,304.99

Year-to-Date Expenditures $175,391.78 248,795.16 $253,671.88 $677,858.82

Unaudited Fund Balance @ 01/31/17 1,550,859.65 4,155,350.24 (172,967.18) 5,533,242.71

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2017 - JANUARY 31, 2017

JOB COST #/NAME 16970 - General Administration 17970 - General Administration 10000 - Administration Allocation TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 20000 - Administration Allocation 17130 - Groundwater Protection - Well Sealing 16000 - District Permit Program 17000 - District Permit Program 16102 - Construction Inspection 17102 - Construction Inspection 17103 - Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance --------- - Permits 16143 - Stewardship Grants 17143 - Stewardship Grants 16144 - Partner Grants 17144 - Partner Grants 16145 - Inspiring Communities Program 17145 - Inspiring Communities Program 17146 - RSVP Rain Garden Projects 17147 - TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens 16200 - Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection 17200 - Baseline Monitor & Data Collection 16205 - Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 17205 - Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 17210 - Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 17215 - Wetland Bio-Monitoring 17220 - Long -Term Monitoring Database Development 17221 - Data Analysis & Reporting Tool 17225 - Remote Data Access & Set-Up 16230 - BMP Monitoring 17230 - BMP Monitoring 15231 - AHUG Exfiltration Monitoring 16250 - General Ed & Outreach 17250 - General Ed & Outreach 17255 - Clean Streets Outreach 16260 - Municipal Outreach 17260 - Municipal Outreach 17262 - Youth Outreach 17263 - Media Training 16265 - Sponsorship & Partnerships 17265 - Sponsorship & Partnerships 16268 - Adopt A Drain 17268 - Adopt A Drain 16270 - Website & Social Media

2017 ANNUAL BUDGET 670,120.00 (337,700.00) $332,420.00 222,882.00 7,160.00 150,870.00 135,900.00 21,950.00 313,830.00 113,810.00 17,440.00 26,130.00 32,630.00 273,240.00 66,020.00 36,500.00 12,900.00 12,030.00 74,700.00 18,020.00 71,430.00 9,500.00 79,130.00 19,830.00 21,410.00 15,360.00 13,640.00 23,460.00 21,810.00 -

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 10,664.71 39,093.90 $49,758.61 60.12 5,512.54 7,388.40 67.83 10,654.29 1,325.09 13,715.11 549.32 354.50 49.16 1,919.16 7,203.81 9,358.83 315.16 393.91 344.86 453.85 168.93 3,211.33 3,542.28 85.08 75.00 90.01 1,211.59 150.01 85.08 30.00

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 10,664.71 (10,664.71) 39,093.90 631,026.10 (337,700.00) $49,758.61 $282,661.39 222,882.00 60.12 7,099.88 5,512.54 (5,512.54) 7,388.40 143,481.60 67.83 (67.83) 135,900.00 21,950.00 10,654.29 (10,654.29) 1,325.09 (1,325.09) 13,715.11 300,114.89 549.32 (549.32) 354.50 113,455.50 49.16 (49.16) 1,919.16 15,520.84 26,130.00 32,630.00 7,203.81 (7,203.81) 9,358.83 263,881.17 315.16 (315.16) 393.91 65,626.09 36,500.00 12,900.00 12,030.00 344.86 74,355.14 18,020.00 453.85 (453.85) 168.93 71,261.07 9,500.00 3,211.33 (3,211.33) 3,542.28 75,587.72 85.08 19,744.92 75.00 (75.00) 21,410.00 15,360.00 13,640.00 90.01 (90.01) 1,211.59 22,248.41 150.01 85.08 21,724.92 30.00

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED --5.83% 0.00% 14.97% 0.00% 0.84% --4.90% --0.00% 0.00% ----4.37% --0.31% --11.00% 0.00% 0.00% --3.43% --0.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.46% 0.00% --0.24% 0.00% --4.48% 0.43% --0.00% 0.00% 0.00% --5.16% --0.39% ---

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2017 - JANUARY 31, 2017

JOB COST #/NAME 17270 - Website & Social Media 16271 - Master Water Stewards 17271 - Master Water Stewards 16275 - Events 17275 - Events 17276 - Strategic Communication Plan 16277 - TWP - Adopt a Drain 17277 - TWP - Adopt a Drain 16278 - TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 17278 - TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 17279 - Social Media 16285 - Awards & Recognition Programs 17285 - Awards & Recognition Programs 17300 - Local & Agency Plan Review & Tech Committee 16303 - BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 17303 - BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 16330 - District Research Program 17330 - District Research Program 17333 - Public Art Program 16370 - GIS Program Development 17370 - GIS Program Development 17375 - Data Acquisition 17390 - Safety Training 17395 - Safety Program Update/Audits 17396 - CSE Equipment TOTAL PROGRAMS: 30000 - Administration Allocation 17405 - St. Paul Natural Resources Intern Program 16420 - Como Reg Park Stormwater Plan 16421 - Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 16426 - Como Lake, In-Lake Management Assessment 17421 - Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 17425 - Curtis Pond Opti RTC O & M 16430 - TWP Como Lake Project Development 17430 - TWP Como Lake Project Development 16432 - TWP Como Lake Project Dev. 17435 - North & East Subwatershed Study 15471 - Aquatic Invasive Mgt Plan 15 16471 - Aquatic Invasive Mgt Plan 15 17470 - AIS Management 17475 - Lake McCarron's Internal Loading Assessment 17476 - Upper Villa Maintenance 16477 - TWP - Lake McCarron's Project Development 17477 - TWP - Lake McCarron's Project Development

2017 ANNUAL BUDGET 74,880.00 53,630.00 39,180.00 23,740.00 8,400.00 12,900.00 7,150.00 11,470.00 19,610.00 20,930.00 54,500.00 25,340.00 24,750.00 10,500.00 7,970.00 9,540.00 13,860.00 $2,229,932.00 114,818.00 8,000.00 47,090.00 99,620.00 38,600.00 7,300.00 16,100.00 50,000.00 18,600.00 10,000.00 33,070.00 16,980.00 16,100.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 151.55 30.04 255.25 90.89 413.70 0.00 30.00 0.00 94.72 0.00 75.78 1,474.51 76.00 18.89 344.76 763.62 49.16 37.78 $72,221.90 7,163.89 98.32 14,289.48 49.16 147.80 749.95 5,378.54 98.53 41.66 151.79 -

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 151.55 74,728.45 30.04 255.25 53,374.75 90.89 413.70 38,766.30 0.00 23,740.00 30.00 0.00 8,400.00 94.72 0.00 12,900.00 75.78 7,074.22 1,474.51 11,470.00 19,610.00 76.00 18.89 20,911.11 344.76 763.62 53,736.38 25,340.00 49.16 37.78 24,712.22 10,500.00 7,970.00 9,540.00 13,860.00 $72,221.90 $2,157,710.10 114,818.00 8,000.00 7,163.89 39,926.11 98.32 14,289.48 85,330.52 49.16 38,550.84 147.80 7,152.20 749.95 16,100.00 5,378.54 50,000.00 18,600.00 98.53 10,000.00 33,070.00 41.66 16,938.34 151.79 16,100.00

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.20% --0.48% --1.06% 0.00% --0.00% --0.00% 1.06% --0.00% 0.00% --0.09% --1.40% 0.00% --0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.24% 0.00% 0.00% 15.21% --14.34% 0.13% 2.02% --0.00% --0.00% 0.00% --0.00% 0.00% 0.25% --0.00%

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2017 - JANUARY 31, 2017

16681 - Ravine Stablization Projects 17681 - Ravine Stablization Projects 17705 - TWP Como BMP McMurray 16710 - TWP Como BMP McMurray 12751 - Upper Villa Park Stormwater Improvement Project 17752 - TWP - McCarrons BMP - Parkview 16720 - Willow Reserve Restoration Project 16815 - TBI Repairs - St. 0+00 - 28+49 16853 - Victoria Park Water Features 16881 - Green Line Redevelopment BMP's 16886 - Lauderdale Subwatershed Stormwater Improvement Projectg 16887 - Midway Stadium 16910 - Special Grants 17910 - Special Grants 17912 - Selby Milton Victoria 14916 - Central High School 15919 - Swede Hollow Final Design 16950 - New Office Facility 17950 - New Office Facility TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 17001 - Debt & Loan Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

2017 ANNUAL BUDGET 41,480.00 101,260.00 39,070.00 5,080.00 13,020.00 25,000.00 24,850.00 17,890.00 29,270.00 63,560.00 38,620.00 $875,378.00 $3,437,730.00 $0.00 27,240.00 151,730.00 1,600.00 100,000.00 120,690.00 1,006,100.00 85,350.00 535,150.00 85,130.00 590,890.00 1,820.00 376,563.00 5,531,000.00 $8,613,263.00 368,918.00 $368,918.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 1,376.05 1,081.17 3,706.00 24.57 250.10 1,086.48 5,704.06 8,294.18 2,660.33 1,059.21 $53,411.27 $175,391.78 49.16 75.57 333.31 4,855.96 235,637.83 49.16 83.33 2,158.52 2,115.71 108.90 84.01 3,243.70 $248,795.16 253,671.88 $253,671.88

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$12,419,911.00

$677,858.82

JOB COST #/NAME 14552 - TBI Easement Verification & Documentation 16550 - Inspection & Annual Maintenance 17550 - Inspection & Annual Maintenance 17554 - TBI Hydraulic/Hydrolic Model Calibration & Update 17570 - NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program 17575 - Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program 17578 - East Branch Subwatershed Study 14625 - Eustis St. Stormwater Improvement 16631 - Highland Ravine Maintenance 17631 - Highland Ravine Maintenance 16620 - Green Line Redevelopment SSGI Design 17621 - Snelling Midway Redevelopment 15622 - Ford Site Planning 17622 - Ford Site Planning 17624 - CCLRT BMP Maintenance 16660 - TWP Grant Admin 16 TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND:

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 41,480.00 1,376.05 1,081.17 100,178.83 3,706.00 35,364.00 5,080.00 13,020.00 25,000.00 24.57 (24.57) 250.10 1,086.48 23,763.52 5,704.06 12,185.94 8,294.18 20,975.82 2,660.33 1,059.21 62,500.79 38,620.00 0.00 $53,411.27 $821,966.73 $175,391.78 $3,262,338.22 49.16 27,240.00 151,730.00 75.57 333.31 1,266.69 100,000.00 4,855.96 115,834.04 235,637.83 770,462.17 85,350.00 535,150.00 49.16 85,080.84 83.33 2,158.52 588,731.48 2,115.71 1,820.00 108.90 376,454.10 84.01 (84.01) 3,243.70 5,531,000.00 $248,795.16 $8,364,467.84 253,671.88 115,246.12 $253,671.88 $115,246.12 $677,858.82

$11,742,052.18

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.00% --1.07% 9.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ----4.37% 31.88% 28.34% --1.67% 0.00% --6.10% 5.10% --0.00% 0.00% --20.83% 0.00% 4.02% 23.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% --0.37% --0.00% 0.03% ----0.00% 2.89% 68.76% 68.76% 5.46%

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2017 - JANUARY 31, 2017 PERMIT NUMBER 9010 9027 11030 14040 15007 15013 15038 15039 16003 16007 16012 16016 16017 16019 16020 16027 16029 16031 16032 16033

PERMIT NAME

PERMIT FEE

Waldorf School Frogtown Square Prior-Goodrich Snelling Avenue Ramsey County Building Demo Jamestown Homes Highland Mixed Use Permit Sunrise Banks Office Building St. Paul College Health/Science Community School of Excellence St. Paul Police Facility Willow Reserve Habitat of Hum. Rivoli Redevelopment Roselawn Cemetary Dorothy Day Place River East School Boaters Outlet Como Avenue 2017 SPJCC Addition Campus Expansion TOTAL PERMITS:

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR-TO-DATE EXPENDITURES

BALANCE OF PERMIT REMAINING

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34.75 285.60 449.50 70.90 561.66 463.81 367.86 429.66 204.66 797.73 527.33 287.16 517.15 306.66 1,287.50 2,025.78 83.32 268.33 882.40 802.53

34.75 285.60 449.50 70.90 561.66 463.81 367.86 429.66 204.66 797.73 527.33 287.16 517.15 306.66 1,287.50 2,025.78 83.32 268.33 882.40 802.53

(34.75) (285.60) (449.50) (70.90) (561.66) (463.81) (367.86) (429.66) (204.66) (797.73) (527.33) (287.16) (517.15) (306.66) (1,287.50) (2,025.78) (83.32) (268.33) (882.40) (802.53)

$0.00

10,654.29

10,654.29

($10,654.29)

% OF PERMIT EXPENDED 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

UPDATED 2/9/17

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD December 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 2016 ANNUAL BUDGET

JOB COST #/NAME 15970 - General Administration 15 16970 - General Administration 16 16999 - New Office 00000 - Administration Allocation TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 200 - Administration 201 - Groundwater 207 - Rulemaking/Rule Revisions 208 - Permitting 210 - Stewardship Grants 211 - Monitoring & Data Collection 220 - Education & Outreach 225 - Technical Resources & Information Sharing 228 - Innovative BMP's Research 230 - Geographic Informatin Systems (GIS) 240 - Safety Program TOTAL PROGRAMS: 300 - Administration 301 - Shoreline & Streambank Maintenance 305 - Como Lake Subwatershed 310 - Lake McCarron's Subwatershed 313 - Loeb lake Subwatershed 315 - Trout Brook Subwatershed 317 - Crosby Lake Subwatershed 325 - Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 330 - Mississippi River Subwatershed 370 - Watershed Plan Audit TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 401 - Shoreline & Streambank Restoration 405 - Como Lake BMP's 410 - Lake McCarron's BMP's 413 - Loeb Lake BMP's 415 - Trout Brook BMP's 417 - Crosby Lake BMP's 425 - Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 430 - Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMP's 440 - Special Projects & Grants 450 - Future Trents: Implementation TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 15104 - Debt & Loan Service 15 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

574,700.00 178,400.00 (293,150.00) $459,950.00 193,479.00 37,040.00 10,450.00 235,560.00 295,890.00 592,430.00 257,960.00 37,260.00 139,390.00 55,700.00 24,230.00 $1,879,389.00 99,671.00 9,760.00 182,940.00 75,900.00 19,500.00 264,120.00 33,800.00 25,600.00 76,100.00 $787,391.00 $3,126,730.00 27,200.00 55,600.00 183,900.00 121,700.00 127,530.00 189,560.00 307,840.00 815,035.00 3,500,000.00 $5,328,365.00 369,336.00 $369,336.00

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$8,824,431.00

TOTAL FUND BALANCE:

Fund Balance @ 12/31/15 1,585,396.40 3,454,406.00 69,200.00 $5,109,002.40

FUND BALANCES Operations Capital Improvement Debt Service

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

YEAR-TO-DATE BALANCE OF BUDGET EXPENDITURES REMAINING 21,996.64 (21,996.64) 346,029.84 228,670.16 178,400.00 (293,150.00) $368,026.48 $91,923.52 193,479.00 8,467.89 28,572.11 4,085.23 6,364.77 350,589.16 (115,029.16) 447,106.57 (151,216.57) 531,837.35 60,592.65 210,615.38 47,344.62 18,435.80 18,824.20 11,017.96 128,372.04 40,827.47 14,872.53 16,976.51 7,253.49 $1,833,438.32 $45,950.68 99,671.00 11,608.33 (1,848.33) 166,739.11 16,200.89 24,799.02 51,100.98 10,053.08 9,446.92 93,909.43 170,210.57 47,543.18 (13,743.18) 360.36 25,239.64 280,384.03 (204,284.03) 1,273.76 (1,273.76) $736,341.30 $51,049.70 $2,937,806.10 $188,923.90 206.19 26,993.81 1,699.10 53,900.90 138,790.11 45,109.89 63,159.67 58,540.33 507,674.13 (380,144.13) 1,078.35 (1,078.35) (37,881.85) 227,441.85 4,791.08 303,048.92 592,062.19 222,972.81 134,906.72 3,365,093.28 $1,406,485.69 $3,921,879.31 353,500.94 15,835.06 $353,500.94 $15,835.06

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED --60.21% 0.00% 0.00% 80.01% 100.00% 22.86% 39.09% 148.83% 151.11% 89.77% 81.65% 49.48% 7.90% 73.30% 70.06% 97.56% 100.00% 118.94% 91.14% 32.67% 51.55% 35.56% 140.66% 1.41% 368.44% --93.52% 93.96% 0.76% 3.06% 75.47% 51.90% 398.08% ---19.98% 1.56% 72.64% 3.85% 26.40% 95.71% 95.71%

$0.00

$4,697,792.73

$4,126,638.27

53.24%

2016 Fund Transfers $0.00

Year-to-Date Revenue 3,073,927.69 2,354,680.83 364,978.35 $5,793,586.87

Year-to-Date Expenditures $2,937,806.10 1,406,485.69 $353,500.94 $4,697,792.73

Unaudited Fund Balance @ 12/31/16 1,721,517.99 4,402,601.14 80,677.41 6,204,796.54

February 15, 2017 V. Action Item C) Approve Amendments to Well Sealing Grant Program DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 9, 2017 Board of Managers Michelle Sylvander Well Sealing Cost-Share Program

Background

By Minnesota State Law a well must be in use, under maintenance permit or sealed by a licensed contractor. A well must be sealed if it is not in use, contaminated, has been improperly sealed in the past, threatens the quality of groundwater or poses a threat to health or safety. As part of the 2000 Watershed Plan, a goal was to develop a cost-share program with Ramsey Conservation District for high priority abandoned well sealing. In 2003 Capitol Region Watershed started a cost-share program to help offset the costs of sealing a well. The current program offers reimbursement of 50% of the cost of sealing a well not to exceed $500.00.

Issues The Department of Health began regulating and tracking well sealing in the mid 1980’s. Wells sealed prior to the 1980’s are most likely not sealed correctly. In the 1990’s home owners had to begin disclosing if a well is located on the property. It is unknown the number of wells that have been sealed prior to the mid 1980’s. Homeowners with a well that was sealed incorrectly have additional expenses to have a well-sealed correctly. Ramsey Conservation District offers a cost share program of 50% not to exceed $750.00. Over 30,000 wells have been identified by Ramsey County as being located in the Capitol Region Watershed District.

Staff is requesting that the Well Sealing Cost Share Program be increased to offer 50% of the cost of sealing a well not to exceed $750.00 to match that of Ramsey Conservation District.

Requested Action Approve the Well Sealing Cost Share Program to cover 50% of the cost of sealing a well not to exceed $750.00.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Memos\2017\Board Memo Well Sealing Cost Share.docx

February 15, 2017 V. Action Items D.) Delegate Decision-Making Authority to CAC for Watershed Steward Awards (Bromelkamp) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 9, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Jessica Bromelkamp Delegate Decision-Making Authority to CAC for Watershed Steward Awards

Background The Award’s Committee met on February 1, 2017 to debrief about the 2016 Watershed Steward Awards and review staff, board and CAC feedback. The committee discussed streamlining the decision-making process for the Watershed Steward Awards. The consensus was that it is no longer be necessary to bring decisions to the full board since two representatives of the board are on the awards committee. Eliminating this step will give the CAC decision-making authority with input from the Award’s Committee, CAC and staff.

Issues The CAC will consider the following recommendations from the Award’s Committee as part of their February meeting. These are the kinds of decisions, pending board approval, that the CAC would be authorized to make in the future.

Recommendation #1: Move the event to mid to late January and utilize the same location and format.

December is a busy time of year for CRWD’s partner organizations as well as staff so the committee recommends moving the event to January. The committee agreed that the Wilder Foundation and general format were a good fit for the event and recommend using a similar format in 2017.

Recommendation #2: Establish a Watershed Education and Outreach Program of the Year Award.

CRWD received nominations for education and outreach programs that did not fit into any of the existing award categories. The committee is recommending that we add a new category to recognize outstanding education and outreach programs in 2017.

Recommendation #3: Establish criteria to evaluate nominations.

The committee came to an agreement about the 2016 winners quickly. However, it was noted that each person was evaluating nominations using different criteria. Establishing criteria for the review process will ensure that we are judging nominations fairly and with criteria supported by the board and CAC. Delegating decision-making authority to the CAC will empower them to take more ownership of the Watershed Stewardship Awards program.

Request Action Delegate decision-making authority to the CAC, with input from the Award’s Committee and staff, for the Watershed Steward Awards program.

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Watershed Steward Awards Program\2017\Watershed Stewardship Awards Committee Recommendations_February 2017

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

February 15, 2017 Board Meeting V. Action Items â&#x20AC;&#x201C; E) RFQ for Education & Communication Services (Bromelkamp)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 9, 2017 CRWD Board of Managers Jessica Bromelkamp, Communications & Outreach Specialist 2017-2018 Request for Education & Communication Services Solicitation

Background CRWD adopted a policy for soliciting professional services in 2010. The current professional services policy requires varying approvals based on anticipated contract amounts. In late 2010, the District requested qualifications and approved a consultant pool for general water resource professional services.

This process did not include services for education and communications work.

Issues Staff has prepared a Request for Qualifications for services in education and communication for 2017 and 2018. This will include requesting information regarding personnel, similar projects, billing rates and availability of staff. In addition, each firm would be asked to identify which service areas they are uniquely qualified and interested in working on.

The District will review all submittals and determine which firms are qualified in each of the thirteen service areas. Qualified firms will be placed in a pool of consultants for calendar years 2017-2018. The District then requests proposals (work orders) for projects from the pool within a respective service area as needed. A draft Request for Qualifications has been prepared and included for review and comment.

Staff is seeking Board authorization to distribute and advertise the Request for Qualifications and for comments on the draft Request for Proposals.

Requested Action Authorize Request for Qualifications for education and communication professional services contracting for 2017-2018 enc:

2017-2018 Draft Consultant Pool Service Area Table Draft 2017-2018 Request for Qualifications for Services

W:\01 Administration\Contracts & Agreements\2017-2018 RFQ\Brd Memo, 2017-2018 RFQ, 2-15-2017.docx

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

February 9, 2017 (NAME) (COMPANY) (ADDRESS) RE: 2017-2018 Request for Qualifications Dear (NAME): Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) regularly hires consultants to provide education and communications services. CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Board requests that any firms interested in providing services submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) for review and approval. You are receiving this letter because of your past work with CRWD and/or projects that have been identified for 2017-2018. SOQs must include the following two sections to be eligible for consideration.

Statement of Qualifications Section I) General Information and Qualifications Section I should include the following information: general information about your firm; a letter of interest; related work, projects or clients; key personnel and their qualifications; a current fee schedule and additional services or specialties. This section may not exceed 20 pages. If your firm is listed in the Minnesota Unified Certification Program directory of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), please note that in your SOQ. Section II) Service Area Qualifications.

Provide a summary of your qualifications and unique expertise in each of the following areas you wish to be considered for future work. Each service area qualification may not exceed two pages.

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)

Graphic Design, Animation & Infographics Videography Photography Website Development and Management Strategic Planning Interpretive Signage Winter & Turfgrass Maintenance Training Best Practices in Communications Training Media Relations Story Maps Interpretive Display Design & Construction Meeting Facilitation Event Planning Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

(NAME) January 30, 2017 Page Two Submit questions in writing to Jessica Bromelkamp by close of business on February 22, 2017. Responses will be provided to all interested parties by February 24, 2017.

Review Process The District will review all submittals and determine which firms are qualified in each of the thirteen areas listed above. Qualified firms will be placed in a pool of consultants for calendar years 2017-2018. The District will request proposals (work orders) for projects from the pool within a respective service area as needed.

Point of Contact Please direct questions to Jessica Bromelkamp at 651-644-8888 or jessica@capitolregionwd.org.

Submittal One original, paper copy and one electronic (pdf) copy of your Statement of Qualifications must be submitted no later than 4:30 pm on Friday, March 3, 2017 to Jessica Bromelkamp, Communications and Outreach Specialist, Capitol Region Watershed District, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, Saint Paul, MN 55108.

Sincerely,

Jessica Bromelkamp Communications & Outreach Specialist

W:\01 Administration\Contracts & Agreements\2017-2018 RFQ\EO RFQ\2017-2018 RFQ, Letter

2

February 15, 2017 V. Action Items F) Authorize Staff to Apply for Brownfield Grants for 595 Aldine St. (Doneux)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 9, 2017 Board of Managers Mark Doneux, Administrator Authorize Staff to Apply for Brownfield Grants for 595 Aldine St.

Background The findings of the Phase II report for 595 Aldine St. identified vapors beneath the slab in the 595 Aldine building that will require mitigation as well as petroleum impacted soils beneath the current asphalt parking area on the west side of the Aldine Building. The MPCA approved Response Action Plan identifies the methods to address and mitigate these environmental impacts. In addition to reviewing the brownfield grant opportunities, staff will provide an update on the design process and draft press release.

Issues Staff are seeking authorization to apply for brownfield grants to assist with the environmental contamination as part of the redevelopment of the 595 Aldine St. property. Brownfield grant funding sources allow the City of St. Paul to sponsor applications and pass funding through to third parties to undertake project activities. Through the City of St. Paul application process, funding may be available for brownfields investigation and cleanup from three different sources. Staff are investigating: 1) Dept. of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Contamination Cleanup and Investigation grant, 2) Met Council Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA). TBRA provides $5 million annually to investigate and clean up brownfields - contaminated land, ground water, or buildings - for redevelopment, and 3) Ramsey County Community and Economic Development and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has established an Environmental Response Fund (ERF) to help project partners clean up contaminated properties throughout the county.

Staff will introduce to the Board and review draft design principles and redevelopment assumptions.

These documents are being developed to reach agreement on key design elements as well as to provide this information to the selected architect in early March. Staff would like to review these draft documents as we discuss the next steps in the building project. Staff have also drafted a press release announcing the purchase and upcoming redevelopment of the 595 Aldine St. property. Staff will review this draft press release with the Board.

Action Requested Authorize staff to apply for appropriate Brownfield Grants for 595 Aldine St. enc:

CRWD Design Principles and Redevelopment Assumptions Draft Press Release

W:\01 Administration\Facility Management\595 Aldine\Board Memo - Brownfield Grant Request 2-9-17.docx

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