May 9, 2018 cac packet

Citizen Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 9, 2018 – Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, Saint Paul, MN 55108 Agenda

Materials Enclosed

7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements and Updates – Introductions

7:05

II)

Public Comment for issues not on the Agenda (3 minutes per person)

7:08

III)

Approval of the Agenda

7:09

IV)

Approval of Minutes A) Approval of the April 11, 2018 Minutes

7:10

V)

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations A) Parkview Water Project, Jenny Eckman, Parkview Elementary School

7:55

VI)

CAC Initiatives A) 2018 Student Learner Program Update (Swanson) B) CAC Tour (Fossum) C) Urban Roots-Speechcraft (MacDonald)

8:10

VII)

Project and Program Updates A) Building Update (Fossum and Kelley) B) 2018 Rules Revision Update (Kelley) C) Como Lake Management Plan Update (Fossum) D) CRWD History Study Update (Cavanaugh) E) McCarrons AIS Plan (Sellner)

8:40

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:50

IX)

Discussion A) New & Old Issues B) CAC Observer for May 16 and June 6, 2018 Board of Managers Meetings D) 2018 Agenda Plan

9:00

X)

Adjourn

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

May 9, 2018 CAC Meeting IV. A. Approve Minutes of April 11, 2018 DRAFT CAC Meeting (Gardner) Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, April 11, 2018 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present: Steve Duerre Gwen Willems Michelle Ulrich Nicole Soderholm David Arbeit Richard Weil Pat Cavanaugh Mary Lilly Bill Barton Kathryn Swanson

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD Belinda Gardner, CRWD Shirley Reider, Board of Managers Katie Brom, Great River Greening Christina Norton, Student

Members absent: Mike MacDonald Tom Elko Bob Simonet I. Welcome, Announcements, and Updates Ms. Willems opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Willems asked for any announcements or updates and introductions.

Mr. Arbeit provided an update on the work being done on the stormwater pipe at Como Lake.

III. Approval of Agenda CAC 18-010 Motion: To approve the CAC April 11, 2018 agenda.

Arbeit/Soderholm Unanimously approved IV. Approval of Minutes A) March 14, 2018 CAC Meeting Minutes CAC 18-011 Motion: To approve the March 14, 2018 minutes as amended.

Duerre/Weil Unanimously approved 1

V. District Initiatives for Review, Comment, and Recommendations A) Field Learning for Teens Administrator Doneux introduced Katie Brom, Outreach Manager of Field Learning for Teens an outdoor youth education program designed to target high school age youth of color. It is a free program of Great River Greening. The program goals are to include all voices and introduce youth of color to environmental services, restoration work to eliminate access barriers to career opportunities.

In 2011, the program had 500 young people, growing to 1700 youth served. The program has 79% youth of color.

In 2017, the District helped fund Girl Scouts Connectz. Last October the group learned how to control erosion and seeded wetland habitat restoration area.

Mr. Arbeit asked about how youth groups such as Girl Scouts Connectz, are introduced to Field Learning for Teens. Ms. Brom replied that the Girl Scouts Connectz is a program that has specific access guidelines and Ms. Brom directly connects with students through school groups.

Ms. Reider asked about the program’s follow up for career opportunities. Ms. Brom replied that she reaches out and connects the students with resources.

Ms. Lilly asked about the statistics of program youth entering the environmental field. Ms. Brom replied that the program is working on keeping track of that information, but that the program does keep student information.

Ms. Willems mentioned that she is interested in the bigger picture. She asked about the projection for the field and the growth opportunity. Ms. Brom was unable to provide that information. Ms. Swanson commented that the field is very competitive.

Ms. Brom played a video for the group with interviews of staff and youth from the organization.

The CAC thanked Ms. Brom for her presentation.

VI. CAC Initiatives A) 2018 Student Learner Program Update (Soderholm) Ms. Soderholm commented that the student learner finalized the interview questions, but Ms. Swanson was unable to contact the student learner. Ms. Swanson will contact the student learner’s instructor and report back at a future meeting.

B)

CAC Officer Elections (Doneux)

Ms. Willems emphasized a special thank you to Mike MacDonald for his work as co-chair.

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

2

CAC officer elections for two Co-chairs and a Secretary. Ms. Willems opened the floor for nominations.

Co-chairs: Mr. Duerre nominated Gwen Willems as Co-chair. Ms. Willems nominated Steve Duerre as Cochair. Secretary: Ms. Willems opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Duerre nominated Michelle Ulrich.

Motion 18-012: Elect Gwen Willems as CAC Co-chair.

Unanimously approved Motion 18-013: Elect Steve Duerre as CAC Co-chair.

Unanimously approved Motion 18-014: Elect Michelle Ulrich as Secretary.

Unanimously approved C) 2018 Tour Draft Itinerary Administrator Doneux reviewed the tour itinerary. Mr. Arbeit asked about videography for the tour.

Administrator Doneux offered to discuss video options before the tour.

VII. Project and Program Updates A) Building Update (Doneux) Administrator Donuex provided a building update. JE Dunn has cleared out the front of the building. The building permit is imminent. The final question holding up the permit concerns sewer easements, which may take time. An encroachment permit will be obtained from public works. The CAC thanked Administrator Doneux for his update.

B) Como Lake Management Plan Update (Doneux) Administrator Doneux provided an update on the Como Lake Management Plan. At the next Board meeting staff will ask for approval of contract with Limnotech to develop the Como Lake Management Plan. There will be a technical advisory group and CAC members are invited to participate in that group. The CAC thanked Mr. Doneux for his update.

C) Annual Report Update Administrator Doneux alerted the group that Ms. Bromelkamp will send out links prompting them to provide feedback online by next Wednesday prior to the Annual Report presentation to the Board of Managers.

Mr. Arbeit asked who the audience is for the Annual Report. Administrator Doneux replied that it is a Staterequired report.

Ms. Swanson asked about having District resources available at libraries.

VIII. CAC Observer Update Ms. Lilly reviewed the topics from the last Board meeting. Ms. Lilly mentioned that there was discussion about planning environmental art at MN United Soccer Stadium. Ms. Reider mentioned the Directors’ meeting with various City departments. She also mentioned a grant to the MN Landscape Association for “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

3

new office that will demonstrate stormwater features. Administrator Doneux mentioned that project drove the Stewardship Grant calculator discussion.

IX. Discussion a. New & Old Issues b. CAC observer for April 18, 2018 and May 2, 2018 Board of Managers Meeting c. 2018 Agenda Plan A) New & Old issues Ms. Cavanaugh commented on the I 94 land bridge park proposal by the Rondo community and recommended that the District stay on top of it. There was discussion by the group.

B) CAC Observer for the Board of Managers Meetings April 18, 2018 and May 2, 2018 Mr. Weil volunteered for May 2nd.

C) 2018 Agenda Plan Ms. Willems read the 2018 agenda plan. The tour starts early this year.

There will be a special new building tour to be announced at a future meeting.

Move the New Building Open House to November.

X. Adjourn CAC 18-015 Motion: To adjourn the April 11, 2018 CAC Meeting.

Soderholm/Swanson Unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Belinda Gardner W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2018\April 11, 2018 Draft Minutes.doc

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

4

May 9, 2018 CAC Meeting VI. CAC Initiatives- B) CAC Tour (Fossum)

Citizen Advisory Committee Watershed Tour 5:15 PM, Wednesday, June 13, 2018 - Capitol Region Watershed District NOTE: The bus will leave at 5:30 PM. Please arrive prior to 5:30 so we can get everybody checked in and boarded on the tour bus.

The June 13 CAC meeting will be a tour of a variety of projects. The bus will leave at 5:30 PM and return to the office by approximately 9:00 PM. All times are approximate. The Tour is rain or shine and will include walking on paved and unpaved trails, up and down hills and on uneven terrain. Please wear good walking shoes.

Tour Agenda Tour Bus will leave CRWD Office at 5:30 PM 1)

Arrive 5:40 – Snelling Midway Redevelopment

Learn about the unique and innovative stormwater management at the Snelling Midway Redevelopment/MN United Soccer Stadium site that includes rainwater harvesting, tree trenches and more. Learn about the district wide stormwater approach being implemented on this 35-acre redevelopment site.

Leave Snelling Midway site at 6:45 2)

Arrive 7:15 -- Swede Hollow Park Stream Improvements

The Swede Hollow stream was once a pristine stream between Lake Phalen and the Mississippi River. As the city developed, that flow was diverted into stormwater pipes. Now the only water in the system comes from inconsistent stormwater from surrounding streets. The first priority for stream improvements is to pursue a steady base flow on the upper end of the site.

Leave Swede Hollow at 7:45 3) Arrive 8:00 – Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary and Lift Station CRWD approved a grant to the City of St. Paul for the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary Project. Major construction of the Nature Sanctuary occurred in 2013 and 2014. The last part of the project is the lift station and force main construction which started in winter 2018. The lift station pulls water out of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor and provide continuous baseflow to the stream in Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary (TBNS).

Leave Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary and Lift Station at 8:30 Mark Doneux, Administrator mark@capitolregionwd.org 651.644.8888 (office), (651) 303.1587 (Cell) W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Tours\CAC Tour June 13, 2018\June 13 2018 CAC Tour Itinerary_DRAFT.docx

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

May 9th, 2018 Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting VII. Project and Program Updates B) 2018 Rule Review (Kelley)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 3, 2018 CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee Forrest Kelley, PE, Regulatory Division Manager 2018 Rule Review Update

Background CRWD and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) last amended District rules in 2015. As part of the ongoing Joint Rules Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and to ensure an equitable and effective permit program, the Districts committed to periodically review and discuss concerns or issues encountered during implementation of District rules.

Issues CRWD and RWMWD staff met in December of 2017 to discuss potential regulatory topics to consider for rule amendments in 2018. In addition to reviewing a number of administrative updates to ensure consistency with CRWD’s MS4 permit and the upcoming NPDES Construction General Permit re-issue, the significant rule changes being considered are provided below: • • • •

Increase the maximum volume credit to 2.5- inches over the impervious areas (current 2-inch max and 2.002-inch filtration requirement has caused some compliance issues) Review cost data for linear projects to determine need for cost cap adjustment (currently $30,000/acre since 2008) Review submittal requirements and allow for electronic applications Include provisions for Regional Compliance or Campus Plans

Staff are currently compiling information to guide and support revisions, and will review the potential changes with the CAC at the meeting. A draft work plan is attached.

Requested Action: None, For Information and Discussion

enc:

Draft 2018 Rules Work Plan

W:\07 Programs\Rules\2018\CAC Memo - 2018 Rules TAC Workplan.docx

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

DRAFT 2018 Rules TAC Shedule

DRAFT TAC 2018 Review Timeline.xls

2018 Task Staff Compile and Review Potential Amendments Request Discussion Topics from TAC Conduct Joint TAC Meeting Review Prelim. Comments with Board Distribute Preliminary Draft Rules for Informal Review and Comment Present Comments and Rule Revisions to the Board Board Approves Draft Rule Revision for Public Comment Hold a public hearing Vote on the Adoption of Proposed Rule Sign and Record the Adopted Rule Publish Notice of the Adopted Rule File the Adopted Rule with the County Recorder and BWSR Mail the Adopted Rule to Each Municipality in the Watershed District

Tentative Board Actions Board Approves Draft Rule Revision for Public Comment Hold a Public Hearing Vote on the Adoption of the Proposed Rule Sign and Record the Adopted Rule

W:\07 Programs\Rules\2018\DRAFT TAC 2018 Review Timeline.xls

Board Action

Feb

X X X X

Date 8/15/2018 9/5/2018 10/17/2018 10/19/2018

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

May 9, 2018 CAC Meeting

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 3, 2018 CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee Bob Fossum, Program Manager 2018 Como Lake Management Plan Update

VII. Project & Program Updates- C) Como Lake Management Plan Update (Fossum)

Background In May 2016 the Board approved a two-phased approach to developing an in-lake management plan for Como Lake, which included: 1) Phase 1—Water Quality Drivers Analysis, and 2) Phase 2—In-Lake Management Plan Development. Phase 1 was recently completed in 2017 and the final report was reviewed and accepted by the Board at the December 20, 2017 meeting. At the same meeting, the Board expressed support to move forward on Phase 2; however, instead of developing a plan solely focused on in-lake management in Como Lake, it was determined that a comprehensive lake management plan should be developed that includes both watershed and in-lake management implementation strategies. This approach was determined based on the significant amount of watershed analysis and implementation that has occurred since the current Como Lake Management Plan was adopted in 2002.

Staff distributed an RFQ to solicit Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) for consultant services for the development of the Como Lake Management Plan and recommended LimnoTech as the consultant. At the April 18, 2018 Board meeting the Managers approved a scope of work, budget, and schedule for LimnoTech to develop the 2018 Como Lake Management Plan (enclosed).

Issues The Como Lake Management Plan scope of work includes the development of a Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

This component is intended to engage the public in the planning process for Como Lake and assist in developing goals and expectations. The Engagement Plan will include public workshops and the formation of a Public Advisory Group.

Staff are seeking designation of at least two members of the CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee to be directly involved in the 2018 Como Lake Management Plan development process. This commitment will include attending public outreach events and other assistance between events yet to be determined. The CAC, as a whole, will be provided regular updates and input opportunities throughout the planning process at regularly scheduled meetings.

Requested Action Designate at least two CAC members to be involved in the development of the 2018 Como Lake Management Plan. enc:

Como Lake Management Plan Scope of Work (LimnoTech).

W:\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\2018 Como Lake Management Plan\Board & CAC\CAC Memo_CLMP Update_5-9-2018.docx

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

April 10, 2018 Bob Fossum Britta Belden Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108 RE: DRAFT Scope of Work – Como Lake Management Plan Dear Bob and Britta: LimnoTech is pleased to support Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) in the development of the Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP). Per your request, this letter provides a draft scope of work to engage stakeholders and develop a holistic CLMP that provides a plan for adaptive management of Como Lake. The primary goal of the CLMP is to develop in-lake and watershed strategies that will achieve water quality goals in Como Lake.

Project tasks that the LimnoTech Team will be supporting include the following: Task 1. Project Coordination & Meetings Task 2. Information Gathering, Review and Summary Task 3. Determine Purpose of Engagement, Identify Key Stakeholders and Develop Stakeholder Engagement Plan Task 4. Identify Como Lake Issues, Goals and Expectation Task 5. Develop Watershed Management Project Elements Task 6. Develop In-Lake Management Project Elements Task 7. Develop Como Lake Management Plan Additional description of the scope items for each of these tasks is provided below.

Task 1. Project Coordination & Meetings. This task will allow for coordination between LimnoTech and CRWD, as needed, to advance and meet the goals of the project. We anticipate regular communication between LimnoTech and CRWD to ensure that goals are being met, and to maintain project schedule. Project meetings with LimnoTech, CRWD, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the Board are also included as part of this task.

1.1 Project coordination & status reporting: • LimnoTech will coordinate with CRWD staff via email or telephone as needed throughout the duration of the project.

• LimnoTech will provide monthly project status updates to CRWD. 1.2 LimnoTech will participate in in-person meetings with CRWD to discuss project progress and direction.

• LimnoTech will prepare meeting materials and will share notes with CRWD within 3 days after the meeting.

DRAFT Scope of Work: Como Lake Management Plan

•

April 10, 2018

LimnoTech assumes up to one in-person meeting per month during the project duration.

1.3 LimnoTech will participate in in-person meetings with CRWD, the Board and/or the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to discuss project progress and direction.

• LimnoTech assumes up to four meetings during the project duration.

• LimnoTech will prepare meeting materials and will share notes with CRWD within 3 days of the meeting.

Task 2. Information Gathering, Review and Summary. LimnoTech will review readily available information that will inform the CLMP. As part of this task, LimnoTech will also review the diffusive sediment phosphorus flux calculations based on the continuous dissolved oxygen data collected by CRWD in 2017.

2.1 Obtain and review existing studies and information.

• Review previously developed reports identified in the RFQ in addition to other readily available relevant reports, literature, and/or textbooks.

• Review past lake management activities, and evaluate success (e.g. hypolimnetic aeration, biomanipulation).

• Summarize key information.

2.2 Develop draft content outline for CLMP. • Develop draft outline of the CLMP using the Crosby Lake Management Plan table of contents as a guide.

• LimnoTech assumes one iterative review and comment on the outline.

2.3 Review and confirm diffusive flux calculations based on continuous DO data • Review and confirm diffusive sediment phosphorus flux calculations based on the continuous DO data collected by CRWD in 2017. This review will seek to confirm the spatial and temporal extent of anoxic conditions in Como Lake based, which will be compared to the historical data that was assessed in Phase I of this project (i.e. the Water Quality Drivers Study – LimnoTech 2017) to confirm internal phosphorus loading estimates.

• Evaluate implications for TMDL. 2.4 Develop and update web-based story map.

• Develop a web-based story map that will be hosted on CRWD’s ArcGIS online account. LimnoTech will provide recommendations for content and layout of the web-based story map.

• The story map will be used as a communication tool to engage and inform the public on the issues in Como Lake as well as showcase adaptive management actions and progress.

• The web-based story map may include, but not limited to the following information: Como Lake history and background, public meetings, stage of the CLMP progress, final report, and emphasis on the long-term adaptive management of Como Lake to meet water quality goals. LimnoTech will develop

Page | 2

DRAFT Scope of Work: Como Lake Management Plan

•

•

April 10, 2018

content to be included in story map with review and approval through CRWD before content goes live on the internet.

The story map will include a comment portal for receiving public feedback on the project. CRWD will compile and manage the comments, which will be provided to LimnoTech for evaluation as part of Task 4.

LimnoTech assumes the following for the story map development: o CRWD staff will assist LimnoTech staff with ArcGIS account setup and access. o Initial setup to include pertinent history and background on Como Lake, current initiative with the CLMP development and emphasis on longterm, holistic and adaptive management process. o Notification of public meetings (up to three updates to story maps). o Up to four additional updates throughout the project duration. o Final update to post a link to the final CLMP, and summary of management outcomes. Updates after the CLMP project is complete will require a separate contract.

Deliverables: • Draft summary of key information that will be serve as background information in the CLMP. LimnoTech assumes one review of the draft summary by CRWD/TAC, which LimnoTech will revise, if needed, in the draft CLMP. • Content outline of the CLMP. • Email confirmation diffusive sediment P flux calculations conducted in Subtask 2.2.

• Web-based story map to be hosted on CRWD’s ArcGIS online account.

Task 3. Determine Purpose of Engagement, Identify Key Stakeholders and Develop Stakeholder Engagement Plan. In order to ensure the long-term success of the final CLMP, it is imperative that the public engagement process is grounded in a clearly articulated purpose for both this project and stakeholder involvement. This will increase the quality of the information generated through collaborative input, enhance the legitimacy of decisions made, and increase buy-in and local capacity to support chosen strategies. Once that purpose is articulated, stakeholder identification and development of an engagement plan can happen. It is expected that the engagement plan will include a mix of formal (meetings/workshops) and informal (surveys, tabling) methods. All input collected will be analyzed after each meeting, and summaries of that information will be made available to the TAC and Project Team for use in preparing for subsequent meetings and informing the CLMP process.

3.1 Determine purpose driving stakeholder engagement, and identify stakeholders and roles • With support from LimnoTech, FWS will lead CRWD (and other relevant individuals specified by CRWD) through a guided conversation to articulate the purpose for stakeholder engagement, identify stakeholders, and establish the role stakeholders will have in decision-making.

• A draft summary from this conversation, prepared by FWS, will be used to define the ‘mission statement’ for public engagement in the development of the Como Lake Management Plan.

Page | 3

DRAFT Scope of Work: Como Lake Management Plan

April 10, 2018

3.2 Develop stakeholder engagement process and draft engagement plan.

• Based on the purpose and stakeholders identified in 3.1, FWS will develop the full engagement plan that seeks to build transparency around the project and will be designed to solicit buy-in from the greater community in both the planning process and the final outcome. CRWD will review the engagement plan, and provide comments/edits for one round of revisions.

• LimnoTech and FWS will also define the structure of the public stakeholder meetings with review from CRWD. 3.3 Adaptively evaluate Scope of Work, Budget, and Schedule to confirm direction and level of effort, and amend the remaining Scope of Work and Schedule if needed.

• Following development of the engagement plan, and/or the first workshop, CRWD and the LimnoTech team will evaluate the remaining Scope of Work, Budget, and Schedule if needed.

• Adjustments could include an increase or decrease in the level of effort for remaining tasks depending upon project progress at the time of evaluation.

• Adjustments to the schedule may also be needed and will be evaluated under this subtask as well.

Deliverables: • Stakeholder engagement plan that describes the full engagement process, including identification of purpose, stakeholders, description of activities involved (communication, formal methods, informal methods, etc.), and timeline.

Task 4. Identify Como Lake Issues, Goals and Expectation. This task will utilize the stakeholder approach and engagement plan developed in Task 3 to engage with key stakeholders to identify and achieve consensus on goals and expectations for Como Lake and its watershed.

4.1 Stakeholder engagement & meetings • Specifics of the overall engagement process will be defined in Task 3 above, but is assumed to include up to three, 3-hour public workshops to engage stakeholders in the CLMP process.

• Based on the outcomes of Task 3, LimnoTech and FWS will develop agendas for up to three public workshops. LimnoTech assumes that CRWD will schedule the workshops. LimnoTech will update the story map with workshop information (i.e. date, time, location, purpose, etc), and will promote the workshops on social media as well.

• CRWD will host the workshops (either at the CRWD office, or another location which will be organized and secured by CRWD) with lead roles from LimnoTech and FWS to engagement stakeholders; however, CRWD will be the “face” of the workshops. As such, LimnoTech assumes CRWD staff will be present at the workshops including representative outreach coordinator(s) to assist with workshop facilitation and outreach.

• LimnoTech and FWS will develop invitation language for various communication channels (e.g. social media and the story map). CRWD will review and edit

Page | 4

DRAFT Scope of Work: Como Lake Management Plan

•

April 10, 2018

language prior to distribution. We assume one iterative review and revision for workshop materials.

LimnoTech assumes that other workshop materials (e.g. maps, pamphlets, etc) will be provided by CRWD. This assumption of responsibility is subject to change pending the outcomes of Subtask 3.3.

4.2 Summarize watershed & in-lake management goals & expectations • FWS will transcribe all comments from each workshop and, using qualitative research methods, analyze the transcripts to identify themes.

• LimnoTech and FWS will draft a narrative summary of the workshop outputs and analysis for each workshop. This draft will be shared with CRWD for review and comment, and will be made available to the public in advance of and at subsequent workshops. Following one iterative review and comment period with CRWD, LimnoTech and FWS will also provide a summary from all workshops that provides clear outlines of goals and priorities stakeholders would like to see in the CLMP Deliverables: • Workshop plan outlining purpose, need, outcomes, process, and schedule for up to three public workshops.

• Transcription of public comments from workshops • Sorting and coding of comments according to qualitative research methods.

• Draft narrative for distribution to workshop participants for review.

• Summary of each workshop that includes narrative reflecting feedback from stakeholders for use in developing goals and priorities in the CLMP plan.

Task 5. Develop Watershed Management Project Elements. The goal of this task will be to summarize watershed loading goals, identified projects, and programs or other strategies previously developed for watershed management. These strategies will seek to reduce nutrient loading to Como Lake with the overall goal of improving water quality. CRWD will provide a timeline for implementation and planning-level cost information to be included with the identified strategies. Watershed strategies that are identified will also consider stakeholder visions, expectations, and goals identified Task 4. Proposed subtasks include the following: 5.1 Review watershed management goals & objectives • LimnoTech will review watershed management goals and objectives that have been developed by CRWD. LimnoTech will include this information in the draft watershed implementation plan.

5.2 Review existing subwatershed loads to confirm progress towards achieving goals from existing BMPs • CRWD will develop a summary of existing subwatershed load which will be reviewed by LimnoTech. CRWD will provide load reductions achieved based on the Como Park Stormwater Inventory & Watershed Analysis (Houston 2016) and outputs from the CRWD BMP Database. LimnoTech will include this information in the draft watershed implementation plan.

Page | 5

DRAFT Scope of Work: Como Lake Management Plan

•

April 10, 2018

If needed, interim milestones will be established to track progress towards meeting subwatershed reduction goals in conjunction with ongoing and future watershed management actions and BMPs.

5.3 Document and summarize future structural & non-structural BMP strategies • Develop BMPs matrix showing potential BMP technologies and suitability for Como Lake watershed, which will be included in the final management plan. This matrix will include previous technologies, and associated costs previously evaluated by CRWD. 5.4 Draft watershed implementation plan.

• The draft plan will identify key watershed partners synthesize work conducted previously by CRWD and its partners in terms of reduction goals, describe existing subwatershed loads, and document an implementation schedule that includes a draft adaptive management approach that will be refined in Task 7.

Osgood Consulting will provide review on the draft plan to inform in-lake management.

• Stakeholder-identified strategies and goals from Task 4 will be documented in the draft plan, and incorporated into strategy development where appropriate and feasible.

• LimnoTech assumes one iterative review and comment period from CRWD and the TAC on this draft plan. Based on comments and feedback on the initial draft, LimnoTech will revise the watershed implementation plan during development of the draft CLMP in Task 7.

Deliverables: • Draft watershed implementation plan that will be finalized as a chapter in the CLMP. Task 6. Develop In-Lake Management Project Elements. The goal of Task 6 will be to define or confirm internal loading goals, identify projects, programs or other strategies for in-lake management. These strategies will seek to reduce nutrient loading to Como Lake with the overall goal of improving water quality. A timeline for implementation and planning-level cost information will be developed for identified strategies. Strategy development will consider stakeholder visions, expectations, and goals identified Task 4. LimnoTech will conduct a highlevel evaluation of all documented in-lake management strategies with more detailed evaluation for those deemed feasible and applicable to Como Lake. Strategies will be evaluated based on proven success rate to improve water quality through reductions in phosphorus concentrations and algal biomass in other systems, applicability for shallow lakes, cost-benefit analysis, and typical timeline for a positive response of implementing that strategy. Strategy development will consider stakeholder visions, expectations, and goals identified Task 4. Proposed subtasks include the following: 6.1 Evaluate In-lake Management Strategies • LimnoTech, with review and input from Osgood Consulting, will provide a highlevel evaluation of all documented in-lake management strategies. Evaluated strategies will include those suggested in the Como Lake Water Quality Drivers

Page | 6

DRAFT Scope of Work: Como Lake Management Plan

• •

•

April 10, 2018

Analysis study, among others described elsewhere (i.e peer-reviewed literature, available reports, guidance documents, and textbooks).

Document why and how some strategies may not feasible for Como Lake.

Feasibility for Como Lake will consider success of strategies applied elsewhere to similar lakes (e.g. shallow, urban), pros and cons of each strategy, general return on investment, complexity of strategy, documented longevity of strategy to reduce nutrient loading, and stakeholder input where appropriate.

Develop planning-level cost comparisons for each strategy (e.g. low, medium, high ranges).

6.2 Develop adaptive in-lake management implementation plan with prioritized strategies.

• Define the adaptive management process. Defining the process will consider the following questions: o How is an adaptive strategy determined? o What science is used to develop it? o What is the process and how is it implemented over time? o What kind of timeline does implementation cover?

• The elements evaluated above will be synthesized into a draft in-lake management plan that emphasizes a long-term, adaptive strategy.

• LimnoTech assumes one review and comment period with CRWD and the TAC. Based on comments and feedback on the initial draft, LimnoTech will revise the in-lake management implementation plan during development of the draft CLMP in Task 7.

Deliverables: • Draft in-lake management plan that will be finalized in the CLMP.

Task 7. Develop Como Lake Management Plan. The information developed in earlier tasks will be synthesized into the CLMP. For the strategies identified in Tasks 5 and 6, cost estimates and timelines for implementation will be included in the plan. The plan will include a separate section that describes the watershed implementation plan. The bulk of the plan will focus on the lake management strategies. Overall, the CLMP will be a holistic plan that integrates multiple management strategies along with an adaptive management approach, which will be required to meet water goals in Como Lake.

7.1 Develop draft plan • The draft CLMP will include background/historical info that was summarized in Task 2. The plan will generally follow the outline developed in Task 2.

• The draft CLMP will include an adaptive management process and timeline for both watershed and in-lake management work.

• Draft plans developed in Tasks 5 and 6 will be revised based on CRWD and TAC feedback on initial drafts, and finalized into the CLMP. • A draft plan will be submitted to CRWD, key partners, and/or stakeholders for comment.

• LimnoTech will present the draft CLMP to CRWD and the TAC.

Page | 7

DRAFT Scope of Work: Como Lake Management Plan

• •

April 10, 2018

LimnoTech assumes CRWD will provide support on compiling public comments on draft CRWD if needed.

LimnoTech assumes two iterative review and comment periods to ready the document for the 30-day public comment period. LimnoTech assumes that CRWD will management and compile public comments, which will be provided to LimnoTech to inform revision in Subtask 7.2.

7.2 Finalize draft plan • LimnoTech will finalize the CLMP based on review and comments from CRWD and the TAC, and stakeholders.

• LimnoTech assumes up to two iterations of review and revision to finalize the document.

7.3 Develop summary of CLMP for public distribution using common language.

• The summary document will provide a summary of the stakeholder engagement process, present management strategies, and timelines and will include imagery from the Story Map. • LimnoTech will draft the CLMP Summary document for CRWD to review and provide input. LimnoTech assumes up to two iterations of review and revision.

7.4 Present final plan to Board of Managers and other key stakeholder groups.

• LimnoTech will present the CLMP to the Board.

• LimnoTech will present the CLMP up to two additional times for other key stakeholder groups to be identified in Task 3.

Deliverables: • Draft CLMP. • Final CLMP. • Summary document for public distribution using common language.

The budget and schedule to complete the Scope of Work proposed here can be found in the attachments (“2018.04.10_CLMP_Budget_table_DRAFT_v2.xlsx” and “2018.04.10_CLMP_Schedue_Draft.xlsx”) Sincerely, LimnoTech

Hans Holmberg, P.E. Associate Vice President

Dendy Lofton, PhD Limnologist

Page | 8

May 9, 2018 CAC Meeting VII. Project and Program Updates – E) McCarrons AIS Plan Update (Sellner) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 1, 2018 Citizen Advisory Committee Joe Sellner, Water Resource Technician McCarrons AIS Plan Update

Background In 2014 and 2015, the District participated in aquatic plant harvesting in Lake McCarrons. During the District’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 February 1, 2017 the Board of Managers authorized a consultant services agreement with Wenck Associates for the development of a Lake McCarrons AIS Plan.

Issues 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 and District partners to develop a draft Lake McCarrons AIS plan (enclosed). Staff will review the draft plan with the CAC. Table 1: McCarrons AIS Management Plan Timeline McCarrons AIS Plan Timeline Item Partner Meeting Update Draft Plan Board Presentation CAC Presentation Public Meeting ‐ Presentation and Comment Update Plan Based on Board/Public Comments Plan Review ‐ Internal Finalize Plan CRWD Board Adopt Plan

Week 1

April‐2018 Week 2 Week 3

Week 4

Week 1

May‐2018 Week 2 Week 3

Week 4

Week 1

June‐2018 Week 2 Week 3

Week 4

Requested Action: Review and provide comment on Lake McCarrons AIS plan enc: Draft Lake McCarrons AIS plan from Wenck Associates, dated April 2018-Digital Only W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Board Memo AIS Plan 04-06-2018.docx

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

Wenck File # 1486-0063 April 2018

Lake McCarrons Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan

Prepared for:

Capitol Region Watershed District

1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108

Prepared by: Tom Langer WENCK 7500 Olson Memorial Hwy Suite 300 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Phone: 763-252-6800 Fax: 763-479-4242

Table of Contents 1.0

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1

2.0

Project Purpose ..................................................................... 1-1

CURRENT STATE OF LAKE MCCARRONS....................................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Overview of Lake McCarrons ................................................... 2-1 Water Quality ....................................................................... 2-1 Biotic Communities ................................................................ 2-1 Summary of Current Conditions ............................................... 2-4

3.0

AIS MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ................................................................. 3-5

4.0

AIS MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 4-6 4.1 4.2 4.3

Established Populations......................................................... 4-6 Threatening Populations ......................................................... 4-8 Rapid Response to New Infestation .........................................4-13

5.0

COORDINATION.......................................................................................... 5-1

6.0

REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 6-1

November 2017 W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) TABLES Table 2-1. Lake McCarrons averaged frequency of occurrence from annual sampling efforts and corresponding floristic quality index summary. .......................................... 2-3 Table 4-1. Infested Waters Species.......................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-2. Exposure risk index. ............................................................................... 4-9 Table 4-3. Habitat conditions index. ........................................................................4-10 Table 4-4. Similar species index. ............................................................................4-10 Table 5-1. AIS management framework tasks, responsible parties and timeframe. ......... 5-1 FIGURES Figure 2-1. Bathymetry of Lake McCarrons and main AIS vectors into the lake............... 2-1 Figure 2-2. Lake McCarrons historical annual average Secchi/TP/Chl-a comparison. Image copied (CRWD, 2016). ................................................................................. 2-1 Figure 2-3. Biotic community health continuum portrayed using submerged aquatic vegetation.................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-4. Lake McCarrons total fish catch summaries by species or trophic guild.......... 2-4 Figure 3-1. AIS management framework for Lake McCarrons....................................... 3-5 Figure 4-1. Target habitats for AIS within Lake McCarrons. ......................................... 4-1 APPENDICES A B C

Vegetation Treatment Suitability Assessments Context to Risk Assessment

November 2017 W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

ii

1.0 Introduction 1.1

Project Purpose

Lake McCarrons is a 73-acre lake located in Roseville, Minnesota. Lake McCarrons is known to have established populations of three aquatic invasive species (AIS): Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum; EWM), curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus; CLP) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). As the only lake within the Capitol Region Watershed District (the District) with a public boat launch, Lake McCarrons is likely the most prone to further introduction of AIS as human boat traffic is a primary vector of AIS movement across the landscape. In 2014 and 2015 the District was involved with harvesting of aquatic plants (including AIS) for the sole purpose of increased recreation access. Through this involvement it became apparent to the District that consideration of AIS and their influence on Lake McCarrons should be an important aspect of active management on Lake McCarrons.

The District’s mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources within the watershed. With growing concern of AIS within the state of Minnesota, the District identified a need to develop an AIS management plan for Lake McCarrons. The goal of this plan is to develop a framework to managing AIS that:    

Controls existing AIS populations within Lake McCarrons Prevents the introduction of new AIS into Lake McCarrons Includes current and unforeseen AIS Involves multiple stakeholder groups

Efforts to minimize the influence of AIS across the state are being researched with new techniques and methods being pursued, therefore this plan provides the current state of knowledge and is meant to be updated and complimented with new data and information as it becomes available. The sections of the plan include: 

Section 2.0 provides an overview of the current condition of Lake McCarrons, outlining the water quality and biological condition of Lake McCarrons. This section provides context to the importance of AIS management and protection initiatives for Lake McCarrons.



Section 3.0 outlines an AIS management framework developed specifically for this project. This section provides a general breakdown of the framework and how it will be used to manage AIS.



Section 4.0 discusses the evaluation and determination of appropriate actions for managing AIS populations pertaining to Lake McCarrons. This section follows the AIS management framework outlined in Section 3.0.

November 2017

1-1

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

2.0 Current State of Lake McCarrons Deep lakes of Minnesota persist across a continuum of water quality and biological health, from clear waters and highly diverse native biotic communities to turbid algal-dominated waters with little biotic diversity. A healthy lake ecosystem provides numerous ecosystem services from foraging, spawning and nursery habitats for fish, macroinvertebrates, and waterfowl, to the sequestering and recycling of nutrients, carbon, and pollutants, to various aesthetic and recreational opportunities. Water quality and biotic community conditions within the lake serve as surrogates to quantify the condition of these ecosystem services and the overall health of the lake. This section provides a general description of Lake McCarrons and the condition of water quality and biotic communities within the lake. Understanding the current health of Lake McCarrons provides context and value to restoration and protection initiatives.

2.1

Overview of Lake McCarrons

2.2

Water Quality

Lake McCarrons is a deep lake with sharp depth changes along the north and south shorelines, gradual depth changes along the east and west shorelines, and a deep open water area in the center of the basin (Figure 2-1). These bathymetric characteristics provide various habitat conditions across the basin. The western littoral (depth ≤ 15 ft.) area is comprised of soft sediments, heavy vegetation growth and a stream inlet. The eastern littoral area is comprised of harder sediments, limited vegetation growth, a public park, boat launch and fishing pier. The northern and southern littoral areas are comprised of residential landscape and a narrow band of aquatic vegetation growth. This diversity of habitats and substrate within the basin support various native species and, consequently, non-native AIS as well. Due to the lake’s diverse habitat, no single species is believed to be able to dominate the entire basin.

Water quality condition in Minnesota lakes is evaluated using three parameters: total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), and Secchi depth. TP is a limiting nutrient for algal growth in lakes, Chl-a correlates to algal biomass as it is the primary pigment in aquatic algae, and secchi depth is a physical measurement of water clarity. These parameters are interrelated and serve as proxies to describe water clarity and lake productivity, therefore, as nutrient and lake productivity increase we typically see an increase in TP and Chl-a concentrations and a decrease in Secchi depth and water clarity. The decrease in water clarity due to algal production equates to a decrease in light penetration through the water column causing a shading effect on the submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) community.

SAV communities impacted by light limitation often have reduced species richness, a decreased vegetation coverage, biomass and maximum growing depth, and have growing conditions that favor turbid tolerant species. A loss in SAV also has cascading impacts up the food web to other communities (fish, invertebrates, waterfowl) within the lake.

November 2017

2-1

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

Figure 2-1. Bathymetry of Lake McCarrons and main AIS vectors into the lake.

November 2017

2-1

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

2.2.1 Lake McCarrons Water Quality Condition The water quality of Lake McCarrons has been a focus of monitoring since the late 1980s.

Early monitoring records documented elevated TP and Chl-a concentrations and poor Secchi depth suggesting a poor water quality condition. In response to impaired water quality conditions, the District pursued an aluminum sulfate treatment in 2004. Since 2004 the lake has significantly improved in water quality and no longer exceeds impairment threshold for Secchi, TP and Chl-a (Figure 2-2). Current water quality conditions of the lake are supportive of a healthy aquatic ecosystem.

Figure 2-2. Lake McCarrons historical annual average Secchi/TP/Chl-a comparison. Image copied (CRWD, 2016).

2.3

Biotic Communities

Biotic communities play an important role in maintaining water quality and ecosystem health. Healthy, native, and diverse vegetation, fish and invertebrate communities support greater ecosystem resilience to disturbances and promote water quality. AIS can diminish the services provided by a healthy ecosystem by displacing native organisms, altering food webs, and impairing recreational opportunities. However, drastic shifts in ecosystem functions do not always occur and AIS can coexist with native species below detrimental densities. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) has developed tools that utilize biotic community based information (AIS included) to monitor and evaluate the health of the lake ecosystems through an organism-disturbance framework. These tools provide a numeric score based on the community composition that can be compared to impairment thresholds to quantify lake health from a biotic perspective.

November 2017

2-1

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

2.3.1 Lake McCarrons Vegetation Community Condition Many people perceive SAV as “weeds” portraying a negative connotation to vegetation in lakes. While nuisance levels of AIS and other SAV can diminish lake health, understanding the importance of SAV as habitat, food, a nutrient recycler and a sediment stabilizer provides value to restoration and/or protection initiatives (Figure 2-3).

Figure 2-3. Biotic community health continuum portrayed using submerged aquatic vegetation.

The MnDNR’s Floristic Quality Index (FQI) is an assessment tool used to determine the biological health of the SAV community. The FQI utilizes species richness and the habitat specificity (C-score) of each species identified to score community health (Equation 1).

Scores are compared to a threshold for context and classification of biological impairment status. Greater scores typically are comprised of diverse native communities with decreased scores losing diversity and increasing monodominant communities to habitat patches void of species (Figure 2.3).

∗

Equation 1.

.

Point intercept surveys were conducted every summer month from 2014-2016 on Lake McCarrons. During a given survey year, 11-14 species of submerged and floating leaf species were observed within Lake McCarrons. The majority of the vegetation growth has been observed within the western littoral area of the lake and supported high occurrences of coontail and EWM. The vegetation community did not meet the biological impairment thresholds for FQI in 2014- 2016 and for species richness in 2014- 2015 (Table 2-1) suggesting impairment in aquatic life for vegetation within the lake.

Impaired FQI scores are the result of observing a reduced number of species and/or the current species observed having relatively low C-scores (common species). Lake McCarrons’ vegetation community would benefit from increased species richness and/or an increased presence of more habitat specific species. Impaired FQI scores are most often associated with external nutrient loading, internal nutrient loads, and/or other human disturbances (i.e. watershed disturbances, shoreline degradation, SAV treatments, AIS introductions) to the vegetation community. With recent improvements to the water clarity of Lake McCarrons, impaired vegetation communities are not believed to be the result of current water clarity conditions in the lake, therefore other factors are likely more limiting to the SAV community.

November 2017

2-2

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

Table 2-1. Lake McCarrons averaged frequency of occurrence from annual sampling efforts and corresponding floristic quality index summary.

FQI Score FQI Status Species Richness Species Richness Status Common Name Scientific Name Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum Muskgrass Chara sp.

Canada waterweed Elodea canadensis Lesser duckweed Lemna minor Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Slender naiad Najas flexilis White water lily Nymphaea odorata Sago Pondweed Potamogeton pectinata Large leaf pondweed Potomogeton amplifolius Curly‐leaf pondweed Potomogeton crispus Leafy pondweed Potomogeton foliosus Clasping pondweed Potomogeton richardsonii White‐water Crowfoot Ranunculus aquatilis Wild celery Valisneria americana Watermeal Wolffia spp

C‐Score 3 7 3 5 3 6 6 3 7 3 6 5 7 6 6

16.6 Impaired 11 Impaired 2014 49.8 9.8 1.7 ‐‐ 42.2 17.6 4.8 ‐‐ 3.3 1.7 4.9 6.3 ‐‐ 4.8 ‐‐

16.0 Impaired 11 Impaired 2015 44.7 ‐‐ 1.4 ‐‐ 69.9 17.1 7.9 ‐‐ 13.5 17.8 1.3 1.3 ‐‐ 5.4 1.3

18.2 Impaired 14 Supporting 2016 56.3 3.7 1.7 11.0 52.3 16.7 14.3 4.0 ‐‐ 4.0 12.7 8.0 4.3 10.3 6.3

*MnDNR deep lake impairment threshold for 2b Ecoregion FQI = 18.6, species richness = 12.

2.3.2 Lake McCarrons Fish Community Condition Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) are currently being developed by the MnDNR to assess the health of fish communities in deep lakes throughout Minnesota. Lake McCarrons does not fit the minimum size requirement (>100 acres) to be considered an assessable lake with current IBIs. However, trap and gill net surveys have been conducted on the lake allowing inferential assessment of the fish community within the lake. A community comprised of many species from different trophic guilds is viewed as healthy and supporting of ecosystem services.

11 recorded trap and gill net surveys have been conducted on Lake McCarrons since the 1950s. Throughout these surveys a total 19 different species have been observed within the lake with swings in community balance (Figures 2-4). The most recent 2016 survey observed 11 species and a relatively balanced fishery between trophic guilds. A variety of total lengths were observed within these species classifications suggesting that multiple year classes also exist with the lake. Surveys observed a limited amount of benthivore species (i.e. carp, bullhead). These results suggest that the fishery on lake McCarrons is in relatively good condition.

November 2017

2-3

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

Figure 2-4. Lake McCarrons total fish catch summaries by species or trophic guild.

2.4

Summary of Current Conditions

Overall the current condition of water quality and biotic communities within Lake McCarrons suggest a relatively healthy ecosystem. Lake management activities should focus on protection and enhancement to continue promoting water quality and a healthy lake ecosystem.    

McCarrons provides various habitat conditions due to the lake bathymetry.

Overall water quality conditions within Lake McCarrons have improved significantly since the 2004 alum treatment.

McCarrons’ vegetation health is slightly below biological impairment thresholds due to lack of species and/or habitat specific species.

McCarrons’ fish community appears balanced with limited occurrence of undesirable species.

November 2017

2-4

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

3.0 AIS Management Framework A step-wise process and criteria based approach was developed in which AIS will be managed on Lake McCarrons (Figure 3-1). A step-wise process assists CRWD with making management decisions pertaining to AIS within or concerning to Lake McCarrons with relative ease and clarity. The framework is not limited to any species, sampling method, or treatment option, rather, its generality allows any AIS to be reviewed. The framework is adaptive and agile to accommodate species with limited information, yet, supports species specific indices as they become available or are developed to update the District’s management decisions. The framework is intended to be data driven from monitoring efforts, however, some subjective assignment was inevitable in developing this framework due to limited knowledge of current and future AIS.

Evaluation * return here

Population Type

Established

Population Status

Action

Degrading/ Nusiance

Treat & Monitor *

Co-existing

* Monitor * Wild Infestation

Evaluation

New

Threatening

Species of Localized Concern

Rapid Response *

High

Early Detection & Prevention *

Moderate

Prevention *

Limited

Awareness *

Figure 3-1. AIS management framework for Lake McCarrons.

The framework starts with an initial evaluation of the community and assignment of an AIS population to one of three population types: Established, New or Threatening. If an AIS is present in the lake, the use of historic monitoring efforts or date of infestation information can be used to determine whether the population is New or Established. AIS not present or documented in the lake are considered a Threatening population. Threatening is not used to imply harm, rather to acknowledge that further review and assessment is needed to determine the level of threat posed by the AIS. Following the evaluation and assignment of a population type, each AIS population is subject to a population status review. The review uses criteria to assign a population status which dictates the ensuing action appropriate to managing the AIS population.

November 2017

3-5

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

4.0 AIS Management 4.1

Established Populations

Established populations are those that have a historic record of occurring in the lake and no documentation that they have been eradicated. Established AIS populations are either a degrading/nuisance population or a coexisting population that is interspersed with the native species in the community. Populations status determination is made using density and coverage criteria. Greater density and coverage indicates greater AIS impact or nuisance potential.

4.1.1 Degrading/ Nuisance populations Degrading populations of AIS impact the health, recreational and/or aesthetic pleasure provided by Lake McCarrons. It is the intention of CRWD to evaluate the feasibility of AIS treatment when an established AIS population becomes degrading or a nuisance on Lake McCarrons. The population status criteria are intended to maximize the effectiveness of treatment activities, protect native biotic communities, and conserve resources for AIS populations that can be effectively managed. Degrading/ nuisance populations are considered to exist when: EWM and CLP populations:  Occur in an area at least five contiguous acres in size (Appendix A).

-And Occur in a monoculture (>75% of total observed biomass); (Langer et al. 2017) Common Carp populations:  When density estimates surpass 100kg/ha (89lbs/acre) across the basin (Bajer et al. 2009).

An established AIS population that does not meet the prior criteria will be classified as a coexisting population (see section 4.1.2).

If a new infestation AIS population (Section 4.3) is reclassified as an established species the following criteria will be used unless updated research for the species can provide more effective criteria for defining a degrading/nuisance population. Population status assignment for submerged aquatic vegetation AIS will follow above EWM and CLP criteria, fish AIS will follow common carp criteria, and no invertebrate population control/ eradication efforts have been conducted on a lake ecosystem to our knowledge, therefore, established invertebrate population criteria need to be evaluated and reviewed with the MnDNR AIS Specialist if they become established within the lake.

Treatment Treatment feasibility assessment will be pursued once a population reaches a degrading/nuisance population level. Treatment will be pursued if determined to be economically feasible and likely to have a net positive impact on lake health. Treatment activities are intended to control the population, not eradicate it, resulting in a population change from degrading/nuisance to co-existing. Eradication is welcomed but can be economically draining and may be biologically detrimental to do so. During the feasibility assessment, a review of the current treatment options and discussion with the MnDNR AIS

November 2017

4-6

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

Specialist will be conducted to determine the most effective and appropriate treatment. The treatment methods, rules and regulations governing AIS are subject to change in years to come. The District will pursue best management strategies that abide by regulation changes with the goal to protect or enhance the biotic community condition within Lake McCarrons.

The most current management guidance for the District pertaining to vegetation, fish and macroinvertebrate AIS as of April 2018 are: (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/laws.html) Aquatic Plant Management The management of aquatic plants in public waters in Minnesota is regulated by Minnesota Statute, Section 103G.615, Chapter 6280. Public waters are described by the state as body of water 2.5 acres or larger within a city limit or 10 acres or larger in a rural setting. Certain management activities do not require a permit as they are intended for individual property owners to pursue on a relatively local scale. The District will only pursue management activities that require an Aquatic Plant Management (APM) permit as these efforts pertain to relatively larger ecosystem scale activities that have a greater overall impact on the lake. Greater detail to the rules, regulations and current methods for managing aquatic plants in Minnesota lakes and a description of common management techniques is provided in Appendix A. Invertebrate Management The management of invertebrate communities are managed by the MnDNR within public lakes. Historically, invertebrate populations are a less managed and sampled species by the MnDNR and have been evaluated within the research division of the agency. The most common form of invertebrate management is intended to treat swimmers itch in which pesticide applications are used to target the host (snails) of the parasite. Regulations that do exist are primarily related to specific transportation and treatment of invertebrate AIS. Minnesota prohibits placement (or the attempt to place) into state waters a watercraft, trailer, or plant harvesting equipment that has invasive species attached (i.e. zebra mussels); (Minn. Stat. ยง 84D.10). Minnesota requires a person leaving state waters to drain boating-related equipment before transporting the watercraft and associated equipment on to public roads (Minn. Stat. ยง 84D.10 and Minn. R. 6216.0500).

Fisheries Management The management of fish communities within public lakes is managed by the MnDNR fisheries division. The use of barriers, exclosure, enclosures or any methods that capture and collect fish in public waters requires permitted approval by the MnDNR. The transportation and stocking/dumping of fish into a waterbody also requires MnDNR approval. Certain instances where barriers or structures alter the flow of water will require additional permitting through the MnDNR Ecological and Water Resources division.

Treatment Monitoring If any treatment activity is pursued, specific evaluation protocols should be developed to collect pre- and post- treatment community information. This level of information will assist with determining the effectiveness of treatment activity(ies) and whether adjustments to treatment methods need to be made. In addition to a specific treatment evaluation protocol, the basin wide sampling protocol and sampling schedule should be maintained so that a change in the population status can be determined. When the population status is downgraded to one that is co-existing, treatment may need not be pursued.

November 2017

4-7

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

4.1.2 Co-existing Populations Co-existing AIS are not perceived to cause significant ecological degradation or nuisance impairments on a basin-wide scale. It is the intention of CRWD to monitor co-existing AIS populations with no treatment. A population will be considered co-existing if it does not meet the criteria to be considered a degrading/nuisance population (Section 4.1.1).

Monitoring A co-existing population of AIS does not require treatment as the efforts to eradicate the population are costly and may have negative and unintended consequences to the native communities within Lake McCarrons. Rather, continued monitoring will ensure that the District is vigilant to population changes and appropriate actions are implemented.

4.2

Threatening Populations

Many AIS could become established in Lake McCarrons, however, their ability to colonize and reach degrading/nuisance levels is species dependent and warrants species specific management consideration. Population status classifications were developed to simplify and organize threatening species for management purposes. A threatening population is classified as a species of high, moderate or limited concern.

Exposure and habitat suitability criteria are used to determine the correct population status and the ensuing management action. Context, criteria and management actions are provided in the following subsections.

4.2.1 Threatening Invaders The list of threatening and emerging AIS in Minnesota continues to grow as we begin to understand the ecology of AIS and assess our nation’s waterbodies. The MnDNR currently considers 16 species on its Minnesota infested waters species list (Table 4-1). Certain AIS that have a long historic presence in Minnesota (CLP and common carp), widespread distribution and/or are regulated by the MnDNR (i.e. Rusty Crayfish) are not placed on the infested waters list, yet, these species are AIS and will be managed as such by the District.

Any foreign species that can be introduced may be considered a threat, however, not all foreign species that are introduced become established. If an AIS does become established it may or may not reach densities that cause significant ecological or nuisance impairments.

The ability of a foreign species to invade a new area and proliferate is related to exposure events and habitat suitability of a given waterbody (Equation 2).

Equation 2. E

November 2017

Table 4-1. Infested Waters Species.

Organism Type Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Fish Invertebrate Invertebrate Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation Invertebrate Invertebrate Invertebrate

4-8

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

Species

bighead carp grass carp round goby ruffe silver carp white perch faucet snail New Zealand mud snail Brazilian waterweed brittle naiad Eurasian watermilfoil flowering rush starry stonewort red swamp crayfish spiny water flea zebra mussel

Exposure risk indices predict the likelihood of new introduction, while suitability potential indices predict the likelihood of successful establishment and proliferation once introduced.

Since each AIS has its own exposure rate and suitability preference, predicting AIS establishment is highly variable. To assist with understanding the threat posed by an AIS to Lake McCarrons, a rapid assessment tool was developed to review any AIS with a limited base of information. This tool utilizes a rudimentary approach in assigning risk ratings to one exposure risk and two suitability potential indices for a given AIS. Under each index a species receives a rating of high, moderate, low or minimal. Once assigned a rating, achievement criteria are used to determine the establishment threat status of a given AIS population. A given threatening population is assigned a status of high, moderate or minimal which dictates the appropriate management action(s). The following subsections describe this tool in greater detail and how it is used to determine the threat status of an AIS population.

4.2.2 Exposure Risk Movement of AIS across the landscape is largely attributed to unintended movement via boat traffic. Modeling exposure risk associated with boat traffic movement requires highly detailed information about where boat movement is occurring, how frequently and from which lakes. It also requires knowing whether the boats moving between lakes carry viable AIS. This network of connections is complex and requires large sources of information which limits rapid assessment. However, Lake McCarrons is thought (assessed through boat launch inspection surveys) to receive the greatest amount of traffic from relatively local groups. AIS transported shorter distances have an increased likelihood that they can encounter suitable conditions sooner than species that are transported greater distances. An Table 4-2. Exposure risk index. exposure risk index was developed based on Exposure Risk Location proximity to Lake McCarrons (Table 4-2).

High In Watershed District Municipal boundaries were used rather than a Moderate In County direct radius measurement, as AIS efforts are Low In Adjacent County often managed at municipal limits, thus providing Minimal Greater Minnesota means to govern and manage boating traffic.

4.2.3 Suitability Potential Climatic conditions, in lake habitat, and biotic interactions influence suitability for AIS establishment. A species’ fundamental niche is often thought of as the environmental conditions that support a given species, whereas, a species’ realized niche is where it is observed. The realized niche is smaller than the fundamental niche as additional factors limit the species from occurring (i.e. competition, barriers, climate). Modeling suitability requires an understanding of both niche spaces requiring site specific information and an understanding of the biology for a given species which limits rapid assessment.

Suitability was modeled using two different indices: habitat condition and similar species indices. Both indices may not always be utilized due to unknown information. In cases where both indices are used and have differing potential classifications the higher of the two ratings (conservative approach) will be used to describe suitability.

November 2017

4-9

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

4.2.3.1.1 Habitat Conditions Indices Table 4-3. Habitat conditions index.

Habitat conditions are associated with Suitability Potential Available Habitat/Resources food/nutrient availability, habitat High Yes (widespread) conditions, and open niche space to Moderate Yes (moderate) become established. The current Low Yes (limited) understanding of suitable conditions is Minimal No (poor) highly variable among AIS and various suitability assessments can be considered. Specific indices do exist for certain AIS (Appendix B); however, their specificity limits their use to select species or systems. A general habitat conditions index was developed to provide rapid assessment of suitable conditions (Table 4-3).

4.2.3.1.2 Similar Species Index Many AIS have a similar native counterpart (i.e. northern watermilfoil and Eurasian watermilfoil) or come from a similar family (i.e. muskgrass and starry stonewort are charophytes) in which they often compete for similar resources and occupy similar niches.

Reviewing current and historic species lists and observed locations within a lake Table 4-4. Similar species index. provides context to whether and where Suitability Potential Similar species (abundance) conditions may persist to support a High Yes (widespread) specific AIS. Not all AIS may have an Moderate Yes (moderate) existing counterpart but still pose a Low Yes (rare) threat to the lake. A similar species index Minimal No was developed to provide additional suitability assessment (Table 4-4).

Establishment Threat The suitability potential and exposure risk indices were used to assign ratings for a threatening AIS. These are compared to different achievement criteria to determine a population status. Threatening populations are classified into one of three levels with specific management actions recommended for each. A species’ threat can be: 1. High High threat species pose the greatest concern to the ecological and recreational health of Lake McCarrons. It is believed that these species, if established, could quickly become a degrading/nuisance population within Lake McCarrons. A species will be considered a high threat if it has:  A moderate or higher suitability (habitat conditions or similar species) rating.

-And A moderate or higher exposure risk rating.

2. Moderate Moderate threat species pose a similar concern for the health of Lake McCarrons but are currently limited by either distance or suitability. Specifically, a threatening species of moderate concern differs from a high concern species in one of two ways: its proximity to Lake McCarrons is more distant or its suitability preference is limited within the lake. A species will be considered a moderate threat if it has:  A moderate or higher suitability (habitat conditions or similar species) rating.

-Or A moderate or higher exposure risk rating.

November 2017

4-10

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

Species that are considered a moderate threat due to meeting the suitability criteria are a concern because distance (exposure events) is the limiting factor for establishment in Lake McCarrons. If these species become established they would have the ability to co-exist within the community and possibly reach degrading/nuisance levels.

Species that are considered a moderate threat due to meeting the proximity criteria are a concern because they have a greater probability of being exposed to Lake McCarrons. These species have a reduced likelihood of becoming established if introduced due to the habitat conditions. If these species did become established would only persist at a co-existing population level. However, lake conditions are not stable over time and conditions could become more favorable to the species increasing the likelihood of establishment due to increased habitat suitability. If they became established they could reach degrading/nuisance population levels.

3. Limited Limited threat species pose a limited concern for the health of Lake McCarrons.

These species are not close in proximity and the current habitat conditions within the lake are believed to poorly support the species. A species will be a limited threat if it has: ď ° A suitability (habitat conditions or similar species) rating less than moderate.

-Andď ° An exposure risk rating less than moderate.

4.2.4 Management Actions Appropriate management action(s) will be dictated by the population status of threatening AIS species. Awareness and acknowledgement of limited concern AIS will be documented by the District but will not be the sole reason for greater management activities. These species are not perceived to cause an immediate threat to the lake and a conservation of resources is thought to be a greater need. Prevention efforts will be assessed for all AIS of high or moderate concern. These species pose a greater level of threat to the lake and are thought to be worth the resources needed to pursue preventative actions. Early detection monitoring will be assessed for all AIS of high concern. High concern species pose the greatest threat to the lake and a high level of preventative actions and early detection monitoring are worth the resources needed to pursue these actions. Greater detail of these actions are provided in the following subsections.

Prevention Preventing the spread of AIS is often thought to be the most effective AIS management technique. Prevention techniques are not limited to a specifically defined list of items, rather, they are intended to be variable and adaptive depending on target audience and available resources. The MnDNR has established regulations and a list of various prevention techniques and materials. The prevention techniques, renditions of these techniques or new and creative techniques can be pursued by the District. Prevention techniques consist of regulations, education and outreach. (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/ais/outreach.html) 4.2.4.1.1 Transporting Species Regulations Minnesota has developed several state laws and a tiered system intended to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species in the state. Species are classified into one of four categories: prohibited, regulated, unregulated nonnative species, or are unclassified and remain as unlisted nonnative species. The classification system establishes the level of regulation and allowable uses for each species. (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/laws.html)

November 2017

4-11

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

4.2.4.1.2 Education & Outreach Outreach and educational opportunities provide individuals and community members the ability to contribute to AIS prevention efforts. These efforts can vary in their design, target audience and who participates, but all can fall under the prevention action item.

Suggestions from the MnDNR: Hands on Boat inspectors  Early detectors trainings  Youth events  Educational showcases  Field visits

Print materials  Brochures  Calendars  Fact sheets  Watch cards  Boat launch signs  Door hangers



Example The University of Minnesota based Minnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center (MAISRC) has developed an AIS detection program that looks to train citizen scientists and professionals to monitor changes in populations of AIS over time and in specific locations (link to website). There is a minimum level of service required to become a certified AIS Tracker. The program provides a unique hands-on experience for people to learn how to identify and report information about AIS populations.

The Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers national education program began in 2002 and was designed to raise awareness and empower people to become part of the solutions to AIS management (link to website). The program’s primary message is Clean, Drain, Dry (and Dispose for anglers) which has been adopted in the state through local water groups. The MnDNR supports the clean, drain and dry program by mandating the following regulations to prevent the spread of AIS across waterbodies:  A person leaving waters of the state must drain all water from water-related equipment, including bait containers, live wells, and bilges, by removing the drain plug before transporting the watercraft and equipment from the water access or riparian property.  Drain plugs, bailers, valves, or other devices used to control the draining of water from ballast tanks, bilges, and live wells must be removed or opened while transporting watercraft and water-related equipment.  A boat lift, dock, swim raft, or associated equipment that has been removed from any water body may not be placed in another water body until a minimum of 21 days have passed.

Early Detection Early detection monitoring is a priority for threatening populations of high concern. Early detection efforts can reduce the probability of an introduction becoming an established population. Early detection efforts range in their expense and investigation depending on the AIS, available resources and knowledgeable identifiers. In some cases, early detection may require certain sampling equipment or the ability to access different areas of the lake.

Early detection monitoring is intended to target specific areas/locations where AIS may enter the lake or are most likely to establish a stronghold. Areas to include in early detection monitoring on Lake McCarrons include:  Public boat launch  Public fishing pier and beach  Inlet to the lake

November 2017

4-12

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

Additional sampling areas should be considered within the lake depending on the species.

Vegetation grows most heavily along the western littoral area but also along the northern and southern shorelines. Random patches in these locations could be selected for detection monitoring. Invertebrate and fish AIS pose a more difficult target organism as they are relatively mobile species. When implementing detection, it is important to look in areas where the species is most commonly observed during various life stages and at a given time of the year. Identification of these different habitat areas are outlined in Figure 4-1 and were developed from historic vegetation surveys. Specific sampling rigor should be vetted with groups conducting the assessment and/or depending on available resources.

Ramsey County District (RCD) currently conducts routine biological monitoring on Lake McCarrons. Monitoring includes basin wide point intercept surveys to assess the vegetation community, zebra mussel veliger tows, and inspection of the boat launch area for zebra mussels and invasive vegetation species.

Examples Minnehaha Creek watershed district has implemented an early detection monitoring plan which has initiated a rapid response in two different lake ecosystem: Christmas Lake (link to publication) and Lake Minnewashta (link to report). The success of these two ecosystems varied yet provide examples of how early detection monitoring plays an important role in AIS management of high concern AIS populations.

4.3

Rapid Response to New Infestation

In responding to new invasions time is critical. A timely response is the best predictor of eradication success. Acting fast will minimize the potential for the species to spread across the lake where cost, logistics and feasibility of treatment quickly become overwhelming, decreasing treatment success.

Responding to new invaders is dramatically influenced by the amount of monitoring conducted or execution of an early detection program.

The dynamics between a given AIS and Lake McCarrons is unique, therefore, no single response strategy can be predeveloped and applied in all situations. However, a general theme and approach can be applied to ensure timely and effective measures are taken. Initial response should: 1. Monitor – Make the detection 2. Report - Report the suspected detection 3. Confirm – state or private specialists can confirm the species identity 4. Communicate – Inform public of incident Suspected detections (step 1) will be handled by the District. These initial inquiries will be reviewed and directed to the MnDNR AIS specialist (step 2) as needed or to confirm the species (step 3). CRWD will work with the MnDNR on communicating new AIS occurrence within Lake McCarrons to the public (step 4). After confirming a positive identity, an assessment will determine what type of infestation has occurred and what the ensuing action will be. A new occurrence will be classified as either a localized species of concern infestation or a wild infestation. Coverage and suitability criteria will be used to determine the correct population status.

November 2017

4-13

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

RCD is preparing species specific rapid response plan frameworks, contractors and treatment options that will serve as supplemental guidance for CRWD and the McCarrons AIS Management Plan.

4.3.1 Localized Species of Concern A localized species of concern is a population that poses a significant ecological detriment or nuisance level threat, is spatially localized, eradication success is high, and any treatment will have a minimal impact on the native community. A species will be considered a localized species of concern if:  The species has a moderate or higher suitability rating (Section 4.2).

-And Initial infestation is localized to a contiguous area no greater than one acre in size.

4.3.2 Wild Infestation A new infestation of an AIS population will be considered a wild infestation on Lake McCarrons when the population is not localized or it is not a significant threat to the lake. A species will be considered a wild infestation if:  The species has a suitability rating less than moderate (Section 4.2).

-Or Initial infestation is greater than one contiguous acre.

4.3.3 Management Actions Appropriate management action(s) will be dictated by the population status of new infestations. New infestations are subject to one of two management actions: monitor the population or rapidly respond to the new occurrence. The rapid response scenario requires a high level of cost, time and effort. A feasibility and logistic assessment will be conducted as part of the initial response plan to ensure all required activities can be carried out to have the greatest likelihood of eradication.

Rapid Response (Treatment) Treating a new infestation is meant to target localized species of concern infestations.

Species identified as such in the lake will proceed with the following response strategy: 1. Feasibility Assessment – Review locations, control options, methods, funding 2. Execute the Plan – Execute response and control measures 3. Follow up Monitoring – Determine effectiveness of plan execution The District along with the MnDNR will conduct a feasibility assessment (Step 1). Local partners and stakeholder groups (MnDNR Communications, neighborhood association, City, and local partners) will be brought into the development and execution of the developed plan (step 2) If a treatment occurs then appropriate follow-up monitoring and evaluation will follow (step 3) to determine success of eradication efforts and that the species has not spread to other areas of the lake.

Monitoring Only Monitoring only will occur when a new infestation is considered a wild infestation. Wild infestation scenarios present concerns with the populations coverage, eradication feasibility or treatment that would result in significant impacts to the native community. Continued monitoring of the population will evaluate the impact it has on Lake McCarrons. Should a wild infestation become an established population, large scale treatment may occur if the population reaches degrading or nuisance levels within the lake (Section 4.1).

November 2017

4-14

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

Figure 4-1. Target habitats for AIS within Lake McCarrons.

November 2017

4-1

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\AIS Plan\Drafts\2018-04-10 Lake McCarrons AIS Plan_D11.docx

5.0 Coordination Effective coordination among stakeholders is essential if AIS are to be managed successfully within Lake McCarrons. It is important to recognize the various stakeholders, their interest in the lake, and what their role may be regarding AIS management. With new infestations in particular, a timely response is important. It is essential that all parties understand and agree upon the role they will take from early detection, to potential treatment and beyond.

The primary identified stakeholders are listed below and specific roles are outlined in Table 5.1.

Ramsey County/Ramsey Conservation District (RCD) RCD has taken on the role of AIS coordination for Ramsey County.

The development of a county New Infestation Response Plan is underway that will outline the steps to be taken in the event of a new infestation including coordination with the DNR, lists of contacts for stakeholders, treatment resources, and potential contractors. In addition, CRWD contracts with RCD to perform aquatic vegetation surveys on Lake McCarrons. Ramsey county would be a major funding source in the event of a new infestation.

The county owns the boat launch at McCarrons, funds boat inspections, and has updated AIS related signage at the launch. The county also conducts lake monitoring which includes chemical and physical parameters as well as targeted AIS surveys.

Capitol Region Watershed District CRWD has developed the Lake McCarrons AIS management plan, and would therefore be the first point of contact for management of AIS in the lake. CRWD is a source of funding for current aquatic plant surveys and could provide funding for AIS control, new infestation rapid response, and follow-up monitoring.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Treatment of existing AIS species would require the involvement of the MN DNR to obtain a permit. All new AIS detections get reported to the MN DNR. They are an integral partner in any rapid response process. The MN DNR would provide funds, expertise, assistance with AIS confirmation, public communications, equipment, and legal authority.

City of Roseville Lake McCarrons is located within the City of Roseville. Lake shore owners are Roseville residents.

Lake Shore Owners and Frequent Lake Users Lake shore owners and lake users have an interest in the health or usability of the lake. This group is an important vector for both gathering and disseminating information on the lake.

There is an opportunity for both formal and informal monitoring of AIS in the lake. A member or members of this group could serve as an important AIS point of contact on the lake.

Table 5-1. AIS management framework tasks, responsible parties and timeframe.

Plan Component

Evaluate (Routine Surveys)

AIS Management Framework

Established AIS Populations

Threatening AIS Populations

Responsible Parties

Task

Description

CRWD, RC/RCD

Aquatic Vegetation Surveys

CRWD

Invertebrate Surveys

MnDNR

Fisheries Surveys

Survey the areal extent and composition of the aquatic vegetation community within the lake.

Survey and assess the composition of the invertebrate population within the lake.

Conduct trap, gill net, and near‐shore fish surveys.

CRWD

Classify known AIS

Classify all AIS in Minnesota as established, new, or threatening with respect to Lake McCarrons.

Yearly or as new AIS emerge

CRWD, MnDNR

Aquatic Plant Management Invertebrate Management Fisheries Management

Determine whether population meets treatment criteria, evaluate treatment options, and conduct cost‐benefit analysis. Treat the population if treatment is indicated by analysis.

Indicated by treatment information and follow‐up monitoring

CRWD

Follow‐up Monitoring

CRWD

Determine Threat Status

CRWD, RC/RCD

Early Detection Monitoring

Conduct regular monitoring aimed specifically at detecting AIS of greatest concern.

As indicated based on best available information for the AIS of concern

RC/RCD

Boat Launch Inspections

Inspect boats entering and exiting lake for compliance with AIS regulations.

At a minimum, weekends during peak boating season/hours

AIS Detector Training

Promote & facilitate citizen AIS Detector training.

Yearly

Educational Materials

Distribute and/or develop AIS educational materials.

Promote and/or facilitate public education events with a focus on AIS.

Ongoing

CRWD, RC/RCD, Lake Residents and Users

Community Events

Develop and execute a monitoring plan to evaluate post‐treatment effects.

Determine the threat status of MN AIS and periodically reevaluate using exposure and suitability indices.

Timeframe or Frequency Twice yearly TBD ~10 year intervals

As indicated by management plan Yearly or as new AIS emerge

Plan Component

Rapid Response to New AIS Infestation

Responsible Parties

Task

Description

Timeframe or Frequency

CRWD

Report Detection

Report the suspected detection to the MN DNR AIS specialist.

Immediately following detection

MnDNR

Confirm Detection

MN DNR will confirm the presence of AIS in the lake.

Following CRWD report of detection

CRWD, RC/RCD, MnDNR

Response Feasibility Evaluation Communicate New Infestation

Review AIS locations, controls, methods, and funding.

Communication to stakeholders regarding new infestation.

Following confirmation of AIS presence

CRWD, RC/RCD

Execute Response Plan

Execute response and control measures.

As indicated based on best available information for the AIS of concern and result of feasibility evaluation

CRWD

Follow‐up Monitoring

Develop and execute a monitoring plan to determine the effectiveness of plan execution.

As indicated by monitoring plan

6.0 References Bajer, P.G, G. Sullivan, and P.W. Sorensen. 2009. Effects of a rapidly increasing population of common carp on vegetative cover and waterfowl in a recently restored Midwestern shallow lake. Hydrobiologia 632: 235-245.

Bodamer, B.L. and J.M. Bossenbroek. 2008. Wetlands as barriers: effects of vegetated waterways on downstream dispersal of zebra mussels. Freshwater Biology, 53: 2051-2060.

Horvath, T. G., G. A. Lamberti, D. M. Lodge and W. L. Perry. 1996. Zebra Mussel Dispersal in Lake-StreamSystems: Source-Sink Dynamics. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15(4): 564-575.

Johnson, L. E., and A. Ricciardi, and J. T. Carlton. 2001. Overland Dispersal of aquatic invasive species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecological Applications, 11(6): 1789-1799.

Johnson, J.A. 2010. Effects of carp on the survival and growth of aquatic plants in Rice Lake. Prepared for Rice Lake Area Association, Maple Grove (MN). Freshwater Scientific Services LLC, Maple Grove (MN).

Johnson, J.A., Jones, A.R., Newman, R.M. 2012. Evaluation of lakewide, early season herbicide treatmetns for controlling invasive curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) in Minnesota lakes. Lakes and Reservoir Management, 28: 346-363.

Jones, A.R., Johnson, J.A., Newman, R.M. 2012. Effects of repeated, early season, herbicide treatments of curlyleaf pondweed on native macrophyte assemblages in Minnesota lakes. Lakes and Reservoir Management, 28: 364-374.

Langer, T.A. et al. 2017. Water depth and lake-wide water level fluctuation influence ι- and β-diversity of coastal wetland fish communities. J. Great Lakes Res. LaRue, E.A., Zuellig, M.P., Netherland, M.D., Heilman, M.A., Thum. R.A. 2013. Hybrid watermilfoil lineages are more invasive and less sensitive to a commonly used herbicide than their exotic parent (Eurasian watermilfoil). Evolutionary Applications 6:462-471.

Karatayev, A.Y, L. E. Burlakova, and D. K. Padilla. 1998. Physical factors that limit the distribution and abundance of Dreissena polymorpha. Journal of Shellfish Research, 17(4): 1219-1235.

McComas et al. 2014. Aquatic Invasive Species Action Plan for Clear Lake, Le Sueur County, Minnesota.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Guidance for selective treatment of invasive aquatic plants in Minnesota.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota Infested Waters List, Downloaded 9/20/2017.

Nault, M.E., Netherland, M.D., Mikulyuk, A., Scorebook, JOG., Asplund, T., Hauxwell, J., Toshner, P. 2014. Efficacy, selectivity, and herbicide concentrations following a whole-lake 2,4-D application targeting Eurasian watermilfoil in two adjacent northern Wisconsin lakes.

Thum, R., Newman, R., Fieldseth, E. 2017. Occurrence and distribution of Eurasian, northern and hybrid watermilfoil in Lake Minnetonka and Christmas Lake: Genetic Analysis Phase II. Verhfstad, M.J.J.H., Nunez, M.M., Reich man, E.P., van Donk, E., Lamers, L.P.M., Bakker, E.S. 2017. Mass development of monospecific submerged macrophyte vegetation after restoration of shallow lakes: Roles of light, sediment nutrient levels, and propagule density. Aquatic Biology 141: 29-38.

Appendix A: Vegetation Treatment Vegetation Control This section describes the rules, regulations and current methods for managing aquatic plants in Minnesota lakes and a description of common management techniques.

Aquatic plant management (APM) permits may be issued to provide riparian access, enhance recreational use, control AIS, manage water levels, and protect or improve habitat.

Separate permits are required for controlling natives for recreational access and controlling AIS. A specific list of criteria is considered to determine if a permit should be granted. A permit will not be issued to improve the appearance of undeveloped shoreline or for aesthetic reasons alone. A permit also cannot be issued in areas given special designations, such as Scientific and Natural Areas or in areas posted as protected fish spawning areas.

Chapter 6280.0250 allows certain activities without an APM permit. Specifically, mechanical control of submerged aquatic plants is allowed by individual property owners in an area not to extend along more than 50 feet or one-half the length of the owner’s total shoreline, whichever is less, and not to exceed 2,500 sq. ft. plus the area needed to extend a channel no wider than 15 feet to open water. These rules also allow for the mechanical control of floating-leaf aquatic plants to obtain a channel extending to open water with the provisions that the channel is no more than 15 feet wide and follows the most direct route to open water, the channel is maintained by cutting or pulling, and the channel remains in the same location from year to year. The skimming of duckweed or filamentous algae from the surface of a water body is also allowed without a permit.

An APM permit is required for all other activities below the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level not mentioned above, including all herbicide control of aquatic plants, relocating or removing vegetation, and installing or operating an automated aquatic plant control device (weed roller).

Permitted Activities Herbicide Treatment A permit is required for all chemical control of aquatic plants. Herbicide control of aquatic plants is limited to an area that does not exceed 15% of the littoral area (typically ≤15 feet depth) of a lake. Only specific pesticides that are labeled for use in aquatic sites can be used, and they must be applied per the label instructions. Application can occur as frequently as the applicant desires; however, the frequency must be approved by the DNR. In herbicide applications, timing, concentration, herbicide used, target species, wind, water flow and water temperature are among the many factors to consider when applying herbicide to control AIS and SAV. Mechanical Treatment Mechanical control of aquatic vegetation typically involves the cutting, pulling, raking or otherwise removing or altering aquatic plants by physical means. Removal can occur as frequently as the applicant desires; however, the frequency must be approved by the MnDNR. Some of the conditions of permitted mechanical control of aquatic plants include:   

the vegetation must be immediately and permanently removed from the water; the mechanical control may not exceed 50% of the total littoral area of the lake control methods must not change the course of the water; and

ď °

mechanical control for recreational access must be conducted in the same location year after year; locations can vary year to year for AIS control based on pre-control surveys.

The combination of herbicide and mechanical removal is not to exceed a total littoral area of 50%. Therefore, if 15% of the littoral area is treated with herbicide only 35% can be harvested by mechanical methods.

Specialized Treatment Options There are additional forms of plant management (i.e. dredging, hydrovacing, biomats) that exist, however, these methods are only approved by the MnDNR in very rare and special cases. These methods attempt to alter or block the sediment with the goal to reset the seed bank and substrate conditions. These methods can be cost prohibitive, require extensive permitting and research assessments; therefore further insight or literature review of these methods was not investigated at this time.

Transplanting A permit is required for the relocation and transplanting of all native SAV. The transport and relocation of any AIS is illegal and is not permitted by the MnDNR. Transplanting is an effective technique when lake conditions are suitable for plant growth when the seed bank and/or abundance of native species in a lake has been depleted. The native vegetation species used in transplanting is typically acquired from areas within the lake and/or from neighboring lakes.

Current research is underway at the University of Minnesota that is monitoring transplanting success of various species through time. Preliminary results are promising, yet, controlling other limiting factors (i.e. light availability, nutrient loading, fisheries management) may need to occur in conjunction with transplanting activities. Transplanting alone has been shown to have little to no improvement in the SAV community. Verhfstad et al. (2017) suggested that once light is no longer limiting, seed propagules or the seed bank within a lake has a greater influence on which species will come back rather than lake sediment chemistry. Therefore, continued efforts to promote and facilitate seed bank restoration and/or transplanting of SAV may produce favorable SAV communities during water quality restoration efforts.

Current State of Milfoil and Curlyleaf Control Various control methods have been used to manage EWM and CLP populations in lake ecosystems. The success of controlling populations has varied but little to no follow up monitoring has been performed to effectively quantify and share knowledge. However, what information is available we summarize in the proceeding paragraphs. It is important to understand that 100% eradication is not likely and the continued presence of the species is likely within the lake. Therefore, treatment objectives should be considered before treatment activities are pursued.

Herbicide treatment of CLP is typically conducted in the early spring when water temperatures are between 50-60°F and warming. At this period in the growing season there is typically little to no native SAV growth, therefore, chemical treatments are meant to target CLP only. Effective chemical concentrations of endothall need to be sustained in target areas and can be greatly influenced by wind and water currents. Treatments are documented as being most effective when large (>5 acres) vegetation stands of CLP can be targeted with dosage concentrations persisting at 0.75 to 1.5 ppm for 12 – 24 hours. If large treatable plots do not exist, small areas may be treated but typically require greater concentrations (1.5 to 2.0 ppm or more) to have effective results (MnDNR 2013). Treatment

of CLP appears to have the greatest result at lowering reproductive success with repeated treatment for 2-3 years. Johnson et al. (2012) found that curlyleaf frequency, biomass and turion density were drastically reduced with repeated treatments, however, complete eradication of viable turions was not achieved suggesting that the population was at least short term controlled. Efforts by Jones et al. (2012) demonstrated that though PC treatment was effective at controlling CLP, there was little change in the native vegetation community.

Only select species were observed to increase in biomass after treatments, suggesting that other factors (i.e. water clarity, fish community, viable seed bank) were limiting the establishment and increase in native species and biomass.

Herbicide treatment of EWM is typically conducted in mid summer when EWM areas have been delineated. At this period in the growing season there can be many other SAV growing, therefore, chemical treatments need to be careful that dosing is conducted in a method that reduces the potential of negatively influencing non-targeted areas and species.

EWM is typically treated with an auxin-mimic, usually triclopyr or 2,4-D herbicides. Effective chemical concentrations need to be sustained in target areas for 12-24 hours and can be greatly influenced by wind and water flows. Treatments are most effective when large vegetation stands are dosed at concentrations persisting at 2 to 4 ppm. Dissipation of herbicides in small plots reduces effectiveness, while increasing dosage to achieve sustained concentrations can drift and harm non-target species (such as waterlilies); (Nault et al.

2014, MnDNR 2013). A growing concern among EWM infested waterbodies is the ability of the species to hybridize with native milfoil species. Hybridized milfoil has been shown to grow faster and may be more resilient to herbicides (LaRue et al. 2013) and hybridized milfoil is speculated to occur more frequently in herbicide treated lakes (Thum et al. 2017).

This growing concern warrants consideration in the use of herbicide treatment in EWM infested waters, as ineffective treatment may foster hybridization and greater difficultly in long-term management.

Technologies and research into mechanical harvesting are growing as the need and desire of lake managers continues to grow. Mechanical harvesting typically occurs when vegetation reaches the water’s surface and is visible. A project piloted by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in 2013 assessed the effectiveness of cutting methods on CLP populations and found that the timing and depth at which the vegetation is cut had a significant influence on the amount of turions observed in the sediment. Turions are a seed like structure in which new CLP stems can sprout. The conclusions of this assessment acknowledge that traditional cutting methods likely will not control populations of CLP, rather they provide lake managers a method to improve recreation on infested waterbodies. This research also highlighted that conducting cuttings deeper and earlier may be more effective at controlling the population and turion densities but continued research is needed and should expand to other species.

In general, long-term control of EWM and CLP has not been overly assessed to date. It is uncertain if the species are completely killed or undergo seasonal injury, rebounding later in the year or in proceeding years. In addition, there is little information on the long-term effect and recolonization of native or desired SAV species. Follow up monitoring is not required to treatments and is often not pursued. Managers should consider current limitations if pursuing treatment of EWM and CLP populations as the results are often shortlived and continued treatments can deplete available resources.

Appendix B: Suitability Assessments This section contains species specific suitability assessments for curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil and zebra mussels that could be used in Minnesota and was obtained from McComas et al. (2014).

Table B1. Curlyleaf pondweed nuisance potential and habitat indicators.

Growth Potential Light Moderate Heavy

pH (su) <7.4 7.4 ‐ 7.7 >7.7

Bulk Density (g/cm3 dry) >1.04 0.52 ‐ 1.03 <0.51

Organic Matter (%) 0.1 ‐ 5 6 ‐20 >20

Fe:Mn Ratio >4.5 1.6 ‐ 4.5 <1.6

Table B2. Eurasian watermilfoil nuisance potential and sediment habitat indicators.

Growth Potential Light Moderate Heavy

NH4 Conc. (ppm) Organic Matter (%) <4 <0.5 & >20 4 ‐ 10 0.6 ‐ 2 & 18 ‐ 20 >10 3 ‐ 17

Table B3. Zebra mussel nuisance potential and habitat indicators for shell formation.

Growth Potential Light Moderate Heavy

Calcium (mg/L) <15 15 ‐ 30 > 30

pH (su) <7.8 or 9.0 ‐ 9.5 7.8 ‐ 8.2 and 8.8 ‐ 9.0 8.2 ‐ 8.8

Alkalinity (mg/L) <55 55 ‐ 100 >100

Conductivity (umhos) <60 60 ‐ 110 >110

Table B4. Zebra mussel nuisance potential and habitat indicators for food availability.

Growth Potential Light Moderate Heavy

Chlorophylla (ug/L) <2.5 or >20 8 ‐20 2.5 ‐ 8

TP (ug/L) <10 or >35 10 ‐ 25 25 ‐ 35

Table B5. Zebra mussel nuisance potential and habitat indicators for substrate preference.

Growth Potential Light Moderate Heavy

DO (mg/L) <7 7 ‐ 8 >8

Substrate muck, sand sand, gravel, plants cobble, rock

Appendix C: Risk Assignment Flowering rush and zebra mussels are both found within Ramsey county and present a moderate level of exposure threat. Flowering rush is an emergent species that is often noted to overtake native bulrush stands. Since no emergent vegetation (i.e. bulrush) is present in Lake McCarrons it is viewed that conditions are likely limiting and the habitat is not suitable.

It is unclear whether native mussels exist within McCarrons Lake, however, submerged vegetation growth can provide attachment sites and a low level of habitat for zebra mussels.

Brittle naiad is viewed as a low exposure risk with the closest occurrence noted to occur within Dakota and Hennepin counties. A species of the same genius as Brittle Naiad also exists in low abundance within the lake and we know that the western littoral area is viable for SAV growth thus posing a moderate level of possible habitat.

Rusty crayfish present a low exposure risk due to its presence in Dakota county and the habitat conditions with Lake McCarrons due not appear favorable to support a large population as rocky or clay substrates are not apparent in the littoral areas. Starry stonewort presents a minimal exposure risk as it is currently found in greater MN, yet, it has a similar species that has been found at moderate levels within the basin and it has suitable conditions within the basin.

Table C is a summary of the text described above and the corresponding threat level for AIS located in adjacent counties or closer to Lake McCarrons, however, this assessment can be expanded to any AIS. No species were observed to have moderate or higher ratings in both exposure and in at least one of the suitability indices, therefore, no species are rated as a high concern. Species of high concern would be subject to both early detection and prevention actions. Flowering rush, zebra mussels, brittle naiad and starry stonewort were observed to have moderate or higher ratings in either the exposure or in at least one of the suitability indices, therefore, four species are rated as a species of moderate concern.

Species of moderate concern are subject to prevention action items. Rusty crayfish were observed at less than a moderate classification in both exposure and suitable habitat/ similar species indices, therefore, one species is rated as limiting concern. Species of limited concern are subject to awareness and no other management action.

Table C. Proximity and suitability assessment of AIS to Lake McCarrons.

Species

Exposure

flowering rush zebra mussels brittle naiad rusty crayfish starry stonewort

Moderate Moderate Low Low Minimal

Suitability (Similar Species) Minimal Unknown Low Unknown Moderate

*Greater MN AIS besides starry stonewort are not shown.

Suitability (Habitat Conditions) Minimal Low Moderate Minimal Moderate

Threatening Status Watching Watching Watching Limited Watching

Toll Free: 800-472-2232

Email: wenckmp@wenck.com

Web: wenck.com

May 9, 2018 CAC Meeting IX. Discussion-D) 2018 CAC Agenda Plan

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee 2018 Agenda Plan CAC Meeting Date January 10, 2018

District Initiatives Friends of the Mississippi River Partner Grant Presentation, Adam Flett Phalen Creek Daylighting Study CRWD Research Program Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary Lift Station.

Saint Paul Natural Resources Partner Grant Programs Adopt a Drain Program 595 Aldine History Project Strategic/Watershed Management Planning

CAC Initiatives 2018 CAC Meeting Plan Watershed Steward Awards Event Service Learning Student Presentation

April 11, 2018

Great River Greening Partner Grant Program Annual Report Update

May 9, 2018

Building Update 2018 Rules Revision Update Como Lake Management Plan Update CRWD History Study Update McCarrons AIS Plan

Election of Officers Student Learner Program Urban Roots-Speechcraft 2018 Tour Draft Itinerary CAC Tour Confirmation Service Learning Student Urban Roots-Speechcraft

February 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

June 13, 2018 July 18, 2018

August 8, 2018 September 12, 2018 November 14, 2018

December 12, 2018

2018 Student Learner Program 2017 Watershed Steward Awards Program Review Service Learning Student Urban Root-Speechcraft Program

Summer Tour 2019 Budget Targeted Watershed Program Web Site Review Strategic Planning 2019 Budget Review and Comment on 2019 Budget 2018-2019 Construction Projects

2017 Reappointment Recommendations 2019 Partner Grants Program

Updated: May 3, 2018 W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2018 CAC Agenda Plan 4-27-18.doc

Service Learning Student

2018 Awards Program Adoption Moos Lecture Series Watershed Steward Awards Program Watershed Steward Awards Program Moos Lecture Series Service Learning Student Watershed Steward Awards