A SAPAA Field Trip to Riverlot 56 on 2024-07-13 revealed a well-maintained natural area with diverse ecosystems but facing challenges from invasive species. The site offers good hiking and botanical opportunities, though improvements in signage, facilities, and invasive weed control are needed.

A field test for the SAPAA Site Inspection Form was conducted on July 13 at Riverlot 56. Stewards George and Mary showed the group around and discussed the challenges of the site. This Site Report is a ‘mashup’ of submissions made by the attendees.

1. Inspection Report
2. Images from Inspection

Inspection Report

Question	Q##	Response
		General Information
Date/Site/Submitter:	Q21/22/12	2024-07-13: Riverlot 56; Richard/Vera D. Patsy C. Hubert T. Guest (Claudia)
Guest Names	Q14
SAPAA Member	Q16	Yes and Not Sure

What is the Naturalness of the Site? 4=Great, 0=Terrible – Q31

• 2, 3, 3
• 4 – Great, Parking lot/trails well maintained and signed
• 2, Very much a mixed or semi-natural ecosystem because of large amounts of non-native smooth brome and field scabious and the inclusion of a large meadow. The natural woodland includes a good diversity of species with drier and wetter portions because much of the natural area is located on a hillside sloping down to the river. Good natural woodland on the flat area on the riverside of the property.
• 3, lots of human foot traffic due to vicinity to urban area; heavy infestation of field scabious, Knautia arvensis.
• 3, River Lot 56 has fine hiking trails, not gravelled and with occasional exposed tree roots which could be a tripping hazard for some. It would be rough for strollers or wheelchairs. There was one invasive species that is taking over but weed pulls are planned. In the past, spruce trees were planted and there is ongoing monitoring in the meadows to keep invasive plant species in check.

Question	Q##	Response
		How was your visit to the PA?
Trip Duration	Q41	< half a day (e.g. < about 4 hours)

Why Did you Go? – Q42

• Visited with other SAPAA Stewards to go over this inspection form.
• “Group meeting with other stewards to gather data for a site inspection form.
• We took the lower trail through the woodland to the road and then the trail through the woods to Kingswood Park. We did not traverse the depressional area to the north nor the upper (more northern) upland trail, The latter would have provided an opportunity to see a flora of open grassland. A full day’s visit would have been required to take these trails. I believe overall we covered about 4 km of the souhernmost wooded portion of the site.”
• This was part of a SAPAA training session; went one-way from the parking lot to the city park in the north.
• Very nice area for plant studies as there was lots of variety along the trails.

Question	Q##	Response
		What is in the Site?
Ease to Visit	Q51	Parking lot or parking for 2 or more cars, Washroom, Directional signs on Feeder roads, Entrance signs, information, etc., Other (see comments)

Biological Observations – Q42

• Observed a lot of plant species — harebells; two types of meadow rue; loosestrife; Saskatoons; chokecherries; dog bane; dogwood; asters; a rare sedge grass identified by an accompanying biologist Birds: red-eyed vireo; pileated woodpecker
• “Woodland wayside flora contained striking amounts of tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum) in full flower (female plants a little behind males in flowering stage) as well as commoner wayside flora., e.g., agrimony, red-and-white-banebery (fine specimens), sanicle, yellow avens, fringed loosestrife, etc., and a good diversity of shrubs including highbush cranberry.
• Four species of butterfly were seen. Coyote poop along the trails indicated the local coyot(s) had been eating a lot of vegetation. Re-eyed viro heard but few birds were in evidence (perhaps because of the middle of the day.”
• two plant photos submitted to iNaturalist
• It wasn’t clear where the north parking lot was, though there was a large sign off the main highway indicating the boundary to the Natural Area.
• I didn’t do iNaturalist though I did take photos of plants and appreciated the expertise of the others in the group.

Question	Q##	Response
Submissions to iNaturalist	Q53	No, not a member of iNaturalist No, did not see anything of note Yes Yes
Geological Observations	Q54	None
Designation as a Protected Area	Q55	Signage, Fencing, Fences, Stiles, Gates
Comments	Q56	Lots of interpretive signage. Visited it many times in the past and have long known it as a natural area. Otherwise, signage would indicate the same. multiple organizations are managing this NA This was a planned visit by the SAPAA group and I appreciated the opportunity to attend with them.
		Human Activities/Disturbances
Agricultural Activities	Q61	None noted
Resource extraction	Q62	None Noted
Motorized disturbances (ATV or vehicle activity).	Q63	None Noted
Animal or self propelled activities	Q64	Hiking Trails, Dog Walking, Botanical pursuits (e.g. plant identification)
Gathering and Dumping Activities	Q65	None Noted
Infrastructure encroachment	Q66	None Noted
Comments	Q67	Noted quite a few visitors using the trails for running and for dog-walking. The north and south sections are bisected by a major paved roadway with regular traffic.
		What Needs to be Done?
Remediation/Protection Activities Needed	Q71	Invasive Weed Removal, Signs, Continued Monitoring
What Have you Done Recently to Help the site?	Q72	Visit and Submitted This Report!
Nearby Stewards?	Q73
Comments	Q74	The stewards have been working at eradicating it but there is still a large infestation of the invasive scabious weed.
Last Words	Q82	Enjoyed the visit. Will be returning!

Disturbance Comments – Q74 and Last Words – Q82

• The stewards have been working at eradicating it but there is still a large infestation of the invasive scabious weed.
• These comments relate to the remediation section which might better be called Suggestions for the Site;
  • Given the public usage of the site, installation of standard Parks toilets could be done at the site.
  • Installation of a donation box might help defray the cost of having the toilets cleaned out. Otherwise St Albert might pay.
  • Trail directional signage could be installed, indicating to visitors their hiking options, along with length of trail.
  • Could a wheel-chair-friendly trail be installed in the lower portion adjacent to the river (restoration area).?
  • The interpretive signs need cleaning.
  • Monitoring should be done with weed control if necessary to ensure the field scabious does not penetrate the natural woodland.
• Several organizations involved in management of area.
• Enjoyed the visit. Will be returning!
• The site is pleasant to visit and provides good local hiking, botanizing and birding opportunities, (skiing in season) but has unrealized potential for better appreciation.
• Observations:
  • 1.) Trails heavily used for exercise (running); no bicycles seen.
  • 2.) There is a large field on the west site undergoing revegetation. Can that be enhanced?
  • 3.)The vast infestion with field scabious, a noxious weed under the Alberta Weed Control Act, is of concern; it’s so widespread that control is probably impossible.”

Images from Inspection