Sustainable Lake Management Plan Tamarack & Fish Lakes … · 2018-12-18 · Tamarack Lake actually...

Sustainable Lake Management Plan Tamarack & Fish Lakes

Ramsey County, MN

Prepared by:

Kristine Lampert Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization

December 2009

Tamarack & Fish Lakes Sustainable Lake Management Plan Page 2


Table of Contents 1. Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. Watershed Features ........................................................................................................................................ 7

A. History ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 B. Birch Lake Drainage Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 C. Soils ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 D. Wetlands .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 E. Bio-Blitz Surveys ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14

4. Lake Features ................................................................................................................................................ 15 A. Shoreline Inventory ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 B. Lake Levels ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17 C. Lake Depth .............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 D. Lake Sediments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 E. Water Quality Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 F. Aquatic Plant Status ................................................................................................................................................................ 24 G. Macroinvertebrate Survey ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 H. Fishery Status .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27

5. Setting Water Quality Goals for Tamarack & Fish Lakes ............................................................................ 28 Appendix A: Bio-Blitz Reports ......................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix B: Lake Sediment Report ................................................................................................................. 37


1. Acknowledgements

VLAWMO wishes to thank the following: • Steve McComas (Blue Water Science) for his assistance in sediment sampling and analysis. • Lorin Hatch (HDR Inc.) for his assistance with an aquatic survey. • Rebecca Dahlin (Northwestern University student) for her assistance with macroinvertebrate surveys. • Tamarack Nature Center staff for providing us with supplies and assistance with carrying out some of the

studies needed to complete this SLMP. • Ramsey County Parks for their help in gathering needed information and providing a canoe for some of our

surveys. • Ramsey County Public Works for their assistance with the calibration of a new lake level gage installed on

Tamarack Lake. The cornerstone of VLAWMO’s success is our vital partnerships; without the help of all those listed above, we would not be able to fulfill our mission. We appreciate all of your work and assistance.


2. Introduction

Tamarack and Fish Lakes are located within the 320 acre Tamarack Nature Center (TNC) in White Bear Township, Ramsey County and lie within the Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization. The land has been a part of the Ramsey County Park system since 1974. In the early planning stages of this Sustainable Lake Management Plan (SLMP), it was decided that we would include Fish Lake rather than only Tamarack Lake, so as to build a plan that more fully addresses the subwatershed. The waterbodies are connected by a stream and wetland system. Tamarack Lake is 11.6 acres with a maximum depth of 10 feet and Fish Lake is 4.5 acres with a maximum depth of 18 feet. Figure 1: Location Map


3. Watershed Features

A. History (source: Tamarack Nature Center)

The land that is now Tamarack Nature Center became inhabited 1861-1863. A large portion of the wetlands were tilled and drained for farmland. A wetland restoration project was completed in an area in the southeast corner of the Nature Center property in 1996. Historically, vegetation surrounding the Nature Center was originally heavily wooded with elm, ash, black, white and burr oaks, tamarack, sugar maple and prairie pines. In the drier soils of the Tamarack Nature Center area a great forest of oak species with an oak savanna (prairie area) existed. The swamps were entirely tamarack and paper birch. Under the tamaracks grew sphagnum mosses, moccasin flowers, jack-in-the-pulpits, trillium, pitcher plants and marsh marigolds. A hand drawn map was provided by Tamarack Nature Center depicting the vegetation in the Tamarack Nature Center property from 1920. Figure 2: Map depicting vegetation and land use circa 1920.

Original wildlife in the area were wolves, bear, grey fox, pin-tailed grouse and quail; none of which remain today. White tail deer became abundant in the 1980’s. Red squirrels, mink and muskrat were quite common.


In 1924, Fish Lake (then called Isackson Lake) had many sunfish and northern in it. At that time the stream flowing out of it from the Hill Farm in North Oaks was like a river. When I-35E was constructed in 1970, the drainage was


altered and less water came into the nature center property. Currently, small bullheads and minnows are commonly found in Fish Lake. Tamarack became known and utilized as a nature center in the 1980’s. A trailer served as the original nature center. The existing building was constructed in 1989. The land immediately surrounding Tamarack and Fish Lakes contains several ponds and extensive wetlands, as well as mature oak and maple woodlands, young pine plantings, open meadow areas and several restored prairies. Hiking trails were designed and developed in the 1980’s and a prairie restoration and prairie trail were completed in 1991. The habitats of TNC are being managed towards a mixture of prairies, oak woods, and a variety of wetlands. The wetlands include tamarack swamps, alder swamps, and cattail marsh. The area surrounding TNC includes a major interstate on the western side, municipal, office, and industrial development to the south, residential to the east and north as well as a school and sport fields to the northeast. The larger region around TNC is dotted with numerous recreational lakes and wetlands.

Aerial Photo History Figure 3: The earliest aerial photos of the area date back to 1940 and indicate that the surrounding land use was agriculture. It appears from the aerial photos as well as discussion with Nature Center staff that the landowner did not grow crops on the land abutting the water bodies.

1940

Figure 4: By 1953, it appears that a drainage ditch was dug in the southeast area of what is now Tamarack Nature Center property and a few homes are beginning to show in the area.

1953


Figure 5: Aerials form 1974 also indicate that residential development continued to grow and Interstate 35E was constructed.

1974

Figure 6: By 1985, more residential development has occurred, especially north of Tamarack Nature Center property.

1985


Figure 7: By 2006, the land south of the nature center was fully developed for industrial and municipal use, and residential development as well as a school surrounded the northern and eastern sides of the nature center.

2006

Ramsey County has plans for changes to Tamarack Nature Center in the near future (see Figure 8). The majority of the changes will occur away from Tamarack and Fish Lake. One concept in the master plan includes the Tamarack Lake Raft which would be a floating platform which can be powered by paddles to move around the lake, allowing visitors to access the lake further. This will stir the water but it is unlikely to have any detrimental effects to the lake’s ecosystem. It is also planned to have boardwalks around Teal Pond. Figure 8: Conceptual plans for Tamarack Nature Center


B. Tamarack & Fish Lakes Drainage Area Tamarack and Fish Lakes are within the Wilkinson Stream subwatershed (yellow area in Figure 9). The area that drains into the lakes is marked by the red dashed line in Figure 4. The drainage area is approximately 500 acres which is over 30 times larger than the surface area of the two lakes. Lakes with a large drainage area (over 10:1 ratio) tend to have lower water quality. Land use is primarily parkland through Ramsey County’s Tamarack Nature Center with industrial land use on the southern end and residential on southeastern side. Interstate 35E is on the western border of the drainage area. Water flows into the area via storm sewers and ditches and flows out through a creek that goes under 35E. Observation well #62039 is located near Tamarack Nature Center and shows a depth to groundwater range of 6.5 – 9.5 feet. This high water table could indicate that the lakes are fed by groundwater in addition to stormwater runoff.

Figure 9: Tamarack & Fish Lakes Drainage Area and Flow Patterns


C. Soils The soils around Tamarack and Fish Lakes vary from sandy loams to muck; primarily based on the topography of the land. The soils in the lower areas and near the lakes are of the mucky types (Rifle, Markey, Cathro). Soils on the upland areas include Hayden, Zimmerman, Isanti, and Anoka which are all fine sandy loams. The sandy loams make for good parkland which the majority of this area consists of. Figure 10: Soils around Tamarack & Fish Lakes


D. Wetlands Tamarack Lake itself is listed as a Type 5 wetland US Fish & Wildlife Circular 39 classification system (water to 6 feet). However, a study of the depth of Tamarack has found areas deeper than 6 feet which would reclassify it as a lake rather than a wetland. The other wetlands in the sub-watershed are all Type 3 – Shallow Marsh. The soil is generally waterlogged early in the growing season and is often covered in 6 inches or more of water. Figure 11: Wetlands around Tamarack & Fish Lakes

E. Bio-Blitz Surveys In 2004, Ramsey County conducted a series of surveys within a 24 hour period to document what birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and fungi were within Tamarack Nature Center property. The detailed results are located in Appendix A. There were no surprising results other than documentation of a couple of relatively rare species, specifically the Bobolink bird and Spring Peeper frog. There were multiple new genus or species of fungi found for Ramsey County however VLAWMO staff is not knowledgeable enough on this subject to discern if this particularly relevant for watershed health of Tamarack and Fish Lakes.


4. Lake Features A. Shoreline Inventory The land surrounding both Tamarack and Fish Lakes is part of the Tamarack Nature Center and therefore no development has occurred along the shorelines of either lake. Figure 12: Shoreline of Tamarack Lake (March 2008)


Figure 13: Shoreline of Fish Lake (October 2008)

The north side of Fish Lake has fewer trees due to continued burning activities.


B. Lake Levels In the past, no lake level gage was present on either Tamarack or Fish Lake. In 2008, VLAWMO staff installed a gage on Tamarack, and will be collecting data in the future. Ramsey County staff has indicated that the water level in Tamarack does not fluctuate which could mean there is a groundwater water source for the lake. Groundwater levels in a nearby monitoring well indicate that water is found between 5.5 -9.5 feet below the surface. Therefore it is likely that groundwater is feeding Tamarack and Fish Lake. There is debate as to whether Tamarack is an old bog. C. Lake Depth It was assumed that Tamarack Lake was shaped like a bathtub and was no more than 6 feet deep. A survey was conducted in July 2008 that showed a different picture. Tamarack Lake actually has two pockets that reach approximately 9.5 – 10 feet deep. This means that game fish could potentially survive in the winter and that this water body should be considered a lake rather than a wetland. Figure 14: Tamarack Lake Depth


Fish Lake is deeper than Tamarack Lake. A small pocket of 18 feet was found. It is possible that game fish could live in Fish Lake. A fish survey on both lakes could provide some interesting results. Figure 15: Fish Lake Depth



D. Lake Sediment Survey A survey was conducted by VLAWMO staff and Steve McComas (Blue Water Science) to study the lake sediments of Tamarack and Fish Lakes. The report by McComas, “Predicting Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil Growth Based on Tamarack and Fish Lake Sediment Characteristics” is attached as Appendix B. The sediment samples were collected on March 27, 2008; five samples were collected on Tamarack and four on Fish. An interesting note is that lake sediment phosphorus concentrations were low in Tamarack Lake and were moderate to high in Fish Lake. Tamarack Lake water quality typically shows very high phosphorus (TP) levels (see Water Quality Summary below). One theory for the high levels of TP in the water was that it was coming from the lake sediment. Based on the results of this survey, that is not the case. The survey concluded that there is a medium potential for nuisance curlyleaf pondweed plant growth and a low potential for Eurasian watermilfoil on both lakes aside for one spot on Fish Lake that showed low potential for Curlyleaf pondweed and high potential for milfoil. However, since there is no boating on these lakes, it is highly improbably that milfoil will ever be an issue E. Water Quality Summary Water quality data has been collected on Tamarack since 1997 and the yearly averages are shown in Table 1 and Figures 15 and 16. Samples from the lake are collected every two weeks from May through September and tested for Total Phosphorus (TP) and Chlorophyll A (Chl A) at the Ramsey County Lake Management Lab and a Secchi Depth Transparency (SDT) measurement is taken. Tamarack is a eutrophic lake and the levels of TP and Chl A are consistently higher than the lake nutrient criteria established by the MPCA while the SDT is consistently lower than the MPCA criteria. However, since Tamarack is not officially listed by the State of Minnesota as a lake, it is not eligible to be put on the MPCA Impaired Waters List. That wouldn’t preclude the County and VLAWMO working together on projects that may help reduce the TP and Chl A levels in Tamarack. In 2010, VLAWMO will attempt to collect samples from the deeper areas of the lake rather than off the dock in order to have a more representative sample. Table 1: Tamarack Lake Water Quality Annual Averages

Year TP (ug/L) Chl A (ug/L) SDT (m) 1997 17 180 0.2 1998 54 32 0.5 1999 90 26 0.4 2000 60 27 0.4 2001 132 37 0.4 2002 164 120 0.4 2003 168 95 0.3 2004 96 0.8 2005 143 65 2006 136 38 2007 148 109 0.5 2008 115 99 0.3 2009 161 161 0.2

Figure 16: Graph of Historical Phosphorus Levels

Phosphorus is the primary cause of excessive plant and algae growth in lake systems. Phosphorus originates from a variety of sources, many of which are human related. Major sources include human and animal wastes, soil erosion, detergents, septic systems and storm water runoff. The standard level set by the MPCA is less than 60 ug/L. Tamarack Lake consistently goes over that threshold. Figure 17: Graph of Historical Chlorophyll A Levels


Chl A is a green pigment in algae. Measuring Chl A concentration gives an indication of how abundant algae are in a waterbody. The MPCA standard for Chl A is less than 20 ug/L. Once again, Tamarack consistently goes over that threshold. Four storm samplers were installed within the drainage area to study the change in pollutants and nutrients as water enters the Nature Center property, flows through Tamarack Lake, through the wetland banking area, and as it leaves Fish Lake. Table 2 gives the results for 2008. The ability of the equipment to collect a sample were hit and miss this year since they will only collect a sample when water levels rise up to a certain extent. VLAWMO will continue to collect samples in 2009. Figure 18: Storm sampler locations in Tamarack Nature Center

Tamarack Culvert

Tamarack Bridge Fish Lake

Outlet

Fish Lake Inlet

Samples were collected in March 2008 at the Tamarack Culvert and Tamarack Bridge sites to determine how much salt is coming off the roads from snowmelt runoff. The results were 600 mg/L at the culvert and 26 mg/L at the bridge. This indicates that there is a high level of salt in the runoff from 35E but that it is not at a high level by the time water reaches the bridge. In 2009, 2 samples were collected at the culvert. On 2/10/09, chloride was 779 mg/L and on 3/6/2009 it was 528 mg/L. VLAWMO will continue collecting chloride samples.



The storm samples were tested for the following: TP, Total Kjehdahl Nitrogen (TKN), Nitrates (NO3), Ammonia (NH3), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). TKN is the sum of organic nitrogen and Ammonia (NH3) . High measurements of TKN typically results from sewage and manure discharges to water bodies. The average TKN for a lake in this ecoregion is 600-1200 ug/L. High NO3 levels are often caused by over application of fertilizers that leach into waterbodies. Unused NO3 turns into NO2 which is poisonous to fish (75ug/L will stress fish; over 500 ug/L can be toxic). Typical levels of NO3 in this ecoregion less than 100 ug/L. NH3 is a form of nitrogen contained in fertilizers, septic system effluent and animal waste. It is also a product of bacterial decomposition of organic matter. Typical levels of NH3 could not be found for this report. However, high levels of unionized NH3 can be toxic to aquatic organisms. TSS indicates the presence of very small particles in the water column. TSS interferes with light penetration, buildup of sediment, and the solids could carry nutrients that cause algal blooms and other toxic pollutants that are harmful to fish. Typical TSS in this ecoregion is 2-6 mg/L. Table 2: Tamarack/Fish Lake Storm Sampler Results (2008-2009)

4/22/2008 6/6/2008 7/8/2008 7/21/2008 7/24/2009 8/20/2009 8/25/2009TP (ug/L)

Tamarack Culvert 109 255 414 267 318 254 242 Tamarack Bridge 357 630 83 480 Fish Lake Inlet 408 343 259 291

Fish Lake Outlet 198 TKN (ug/L)


Fish Lake Outlet 3630 NO3 (ug/L)


Fish Lake Outlet 80 NH3 (ug/L)


Fish Lake Outlet 1330 TSS (mg/L)

Tamarack Culvert 17.8 8.8 19.3 28.2 115.8 85.6 Tamarack Bridge 25.1 20.6 10.7 Fish Lake Inlet 24 14.3 10.1 21.1

Fish Lake Outlet 11.8 At this point, VLAWMO does not plan to conduct storm sampling in the near future. Our results were unpredictable but we at least have a start on what the water quality is as it flows through Tamarack Nature Center.


Table 3 shows the last 3 years of nutrient analysis on Tamarack Lake, the MPCA nutrient standards for lakes, and the results of predicted lake nutrient status derived from the MNLeap modeling software. The model was first run based on typical conditions of the Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion which uses an average TP inflow of 150 ug/L. The model was run again using a TP inflow of 265 ug/L based on results from storm sample collections at the 35E culvert. Consideration could be given to installing measures that would reduce the amount of TP inflow into the Nature Center at the 35E culvert which may result in lower TP levels in Tamarack Lake itself. Table 3: MNLeap Nutrient Analysis for Tamarack Lake

Tamarack Nutrient Analysis

Average Conditions TP

(μg/L) Chl A

(μg/L) SDT (m)

2006 136 38

2007 148 104.4 0.5

2008 114.6 98.6 0.3

2009 161 161 0.2

MPCA Nutrient Criteria (shallow lakes)

60 20 1.1

Predicted Conditions (MnLEAP Model - CHF Avg – 148 ug/L inflow)

81 40.5 0.9

Predicted Conditions (MnLEAP Model - 265 ug/L TP inflow)

125 76.6 0.6

F. Aquatic Vegetation VLAWMO staff worked with Lorin Hatch, HDR Inc. in July 2008 to determine what plants were growing within Tamarack Lake. Water clarity is low enough that light cannot penetrate to support plant growth past 4 feet in depth. Therefore, our survey was conducted around the perimeter of the lake. At 24 points, a rake was dragged from the lake bottom up through the water column and the identification and abundance of plants was recorded. Figure 19: Aquatic Vegetation Survey Map

Four types of plants were found in Tamarack: Sago Pondweed, Coontail, Lily, and Najas flexilus. We rated the abundance of each variety on a 5 point scale with 1 being a low abundance and 5 being a high abundance. The abundance of each variety differed around the lake but Sago Pondweed was found at nearly every spot we sampled. There were only 2 survey points where no plants were found (points 2 & 3), which this is where we checked for aquatic plants at the 4 foot depth or deeper. Table 4: Aquatic Vegetation Survey Points

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Sago Pondweed 2 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 5 2Coontail 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 4Lily 1 1 2 2 3 3 Najas flexilus 1 1 5 4 3 5 5 5


Sago Pondweed was found at nearly every survey point around the lake and was thickest at points 12-15 and 20-23. Coontail was also found at many survey points but was only dominant at point 24. Water lily was mainly between


points 11-18. Lastly, Najas flexilus was most prominent from points 13-21. All of these plants are native and none appear to be a nuisance. According to the DNR, Sago Pondweed provides food for waterfowl and support aquatic insects for fish and ducklings to eat. Coontail plants are tolerant of nutrient-rich water (such as Tamarack) and as with Sago Pondweed, it provides food for waterfowl. If it grows too densely around a shoreline, it can be a nuisance. Water Lily plants grow in mucky bottoms of lakes and are an excellent habitat for largemouth bass and sunfish as well as providing food for waterfowl. Najas flexilus generally grows in clear water and start from seed each year. The entire plant is eaten by waterfowl, especially mallards, and provides cover for bass, pike, small bluegills and perch.


G. Macroinvertebrate Survey Three surveys were conducted, primarily by Rebecca Dahlin, a student from Northwestern University. Surveys were done on Tamarack and Fish Lakes, as well as on Teal Pond during the summer of 2008. Using specialized nets, dips are made throughout a waterbody. Macroinvertebrates were identified and quantified. The types of macroinvertebrates found correlate to different sensitivities of pollution. A data sheet is filled out which allocates the macroinvertebrates into different Pollution Tolerance Groups. A calculation is made which result in a Pollution Tolerance Index (PTI) rating. The ratings are: 23 or More = Excellent 17 – 22 = Good 11 – 16 = Fair 10 or Less = Poor Table 5: Tamarack Lake Macroinvertebrate Findings (10 dip sites/15 dips per site)

PT Group 1 Intolerant

PT Group 2 Moderately Intolerant

PT Group 3 Fairly Tolerant

PT Group 4 Very Tolerant

Stonefly Nymph Damselfly Nymph 27 Midge Larvae Left-Handed Snail 10

Mayfly Larvae/Nymph 13 Dragonfly Nymph 13 Black Fly Larvae Aquatic Worms 3

Caddis Fly Larvae/Nymph 7 Sowbug Planaria Blood Midge

Dobsonfly Nymph Scud 27 Leech 1 Rat-tailed Maggot

Riffle Beetle 3 Crane Fly Larvae 3 Water Mite 40 Orb Snail 3

Water Penny 1 Clams/Mussels

Right-Handed Snail 1 Crayfish

# of Taxa 5 # of Taxa 4 # of Taxa 2 # of Taxa 3

weighting factor (x 4) 20 (x 3) 12 (x 2) 4 (x 1) 3

Total PTI 39

Table 6: Fish Lake Macroinvertebrate Findings (10 dip sites/6 dips per site)

PT Group 1 Intolerant




Stonefly Nymph Damselfly Nymph Midge Larvae Left-Handed Snail

Mayfly Larvae/Nymph Dragonfly Nymph 1 Black Fly Larvae Aquatic Worms 1

Caddis Fly Larvae/Nymph Sowbug Planaria Blood Midge

Dobsonfly Nymph Scud Leech 11 Rat-tailed Maggot

Riffle Beetle Crane Fly Larvae Water Mite 4 Orb Snail

Water Penny Clams/Mussels 1

Right-Handed Snail Crayfish

# of Taxa # of Taxa 2 # of Taxa 2 # of Taxa 1

weighting factor (x 4) (x 3) 6 (x 2) 4 (x 1) 1

Total PTI 11


Table 7: Teal Pond Macroinvertebrate Findings (6 dip sites on north end of pond/6 dips per site) PT Group 1 Intolerant




Stonefly Nymph Damselfly Nymph 1 Midge Larvae 1 Left-Handed Snail

Mayfly Larvae/Nymph Dragonfly Nymph Black Fly Larvae Aquatic Worms

Caddis Fly Larvae/Nymph Sowbug Planaria Blood Midge

Dobsonfly Nymph Scud Leech 6 Rat-tailed Maggot

Riffle Beetle Crane Fly Larvae 3 Water Mite 1 Orb Snail

Water Penny Clams/Mussels 3

Right-Handed Snail Crayfish

# of Taxa # of Taxa 3 # of Taxa 3 # of Taxa

weighting factor (x 4) (x 3) 9 (x 2) 6 (x 1)

Total PTI 15

Initial findings would indicate that Tamarack Lake has very little pollution while Fish Lake and Teal Pond have a moderate amount. These results are not conclusive however. Further study could be undertaken to determine the accuracy of these findings. H. Fish Survey While conducting the surveys in 2008, VLAWMO staff noted the presence of many bullhead fish and minnows in Tamarack Lake. Both of these fish stir up lake bottoms and may be a reason why the water is so cloudy. An official fish survey would provide further information about Tamarack and Fish Lakes and could be considered by the stakeholders.


5. Lake Management Plan for Tamarack Lake As stated previously in this report, Tamarack Lake’s water quality is poor. Fish Lake is not monitored for water quality but the few samples collected from the inlet and outlet of Fish Lake indicate that it is very high in phosphorus levels as well. Since the land surrounding both lakes is largely natural, the stakeholders must brainstorm ways that the water in these lakes could be improved. The table below lists various action items that will expand on the current knowledge of the lake and watershed and possibly enhance the water quality. The table also lists who the lead for each item could be as well as a cost range for each item. Table 8: Action List for Tamarack and Fish Lakes Action Item Description Leader Cost Estimate

$ = <$1000 $$ = $1000-$2500 $$$ = $2500-$5000 $$$$ = >$5000

Continued Lake Monitoring

Continue current monitoring program of twice monthly lake sampling to measure nutrient levels, dissolved oxygen and temperature levels.

VLAWMO $

Enhanced Lake Monitoring

Add zooplankton and phytoplankton to monitoring program. Ramsey Co Lake Management Lab can ID diatoms.

VLAWMO & Ramsey Co

$

Fish Survey Document the type and amount of fish in Tamarack and Fish Lakes.

TNC , Ramsey Co & VLAWMO

$$$

Wildlife Survey Implement daily tracking of birds and wildlife seen in and around the lake.

TNC $

Macroinvertebrate Survey

Work with TNC staff to conduct further macroinvertebrate surveys.

TNC & VLAWMO

Enhanced Studies Work with all stakeholders and possibly consultants to do a Phosphorus and/or water budget for Tamarack Lake. Also conduct a “bench study”.

VLAWMO, TNC, Ramsey Co & White Bear Twp.

Reduce Phosphorus (P) Levels at Lake Inlets

Work with all stakeholders to determine source of internal loading of P in Tamarack Lake.

VLAWMO, TNC, Ramsey Co, & White Bear Twp.

$$$-$$$$

Education Efforts Continued and enhanced education of watershed protection to visitors of Tamarack Nature Center.

Tamarack $

Change Tamarack’s Classification

Work with DNR to change classification of Tamarack from wetland to lake so as to qualify for grants to enhance the water quality.

VLAWMO $

Partnership is vital to achieving our goals in this watershed. VLAWMO will continue to work with Tamarack Nature Center, Ramsey County, and White Bear Township to move forward with the action items listed in this SLMP with the goal of protecting and enhancing Tamarack and Fish Lakes’ water quality. Tamarack Nature Center is a wonderful resource to have in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and with good stewardship, it will remain so for generations to come.


Appendix A

Bio-Blitz Reports 2004


Appendix B

Predicting Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil Growth Based on Tamarack and Fish Lake Sediment Characteristics

2008

Date post:	13-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Sustainable Lake Management Plan Tamarack & Fish Lakes … · 2018-12-18 · Tamarack Lake actually...

Documents