HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-13 PACKET 07.D.City of
Cotta Grove
Minnesota
To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
From: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director
CC:
Date: February 7, 2012
Subject: Camel's Hump/West Draw Natural Resources Restoration Grant
Introduction
The MN DNR has opened a second round of grant funding for its Conservation Partners Legacy
program. This program is designed to restore, protect or enhance prairies, wetlands, forests, or habitat
for fish, game, or wildlife in Minnesota. Cottage Grove will be applying for a $70,000 grant from this
program to be used for forest restorative work in the Camel's Hump /Gateway North Open Space areas
as well as a prairie restoration project within the West Draw Park and Open Space areas.
Background
In the fall of 2012, staff applied for a prairie restoration grant in the West Draw Park area. That grant
was declined by the MNDNR. Staff believes that broadening the grant application to include forest
rehabilitation in the Camel's Hump areas but also retaining that prairie restoration element may improve
the likelihood of success. Having recently received the Friends of the Mississippi River Natural
Resources Management Plan (draft included for your review), the report identified these areas as
possessing some of the most valuable natural resources in the community. However, the document
also identifies that degradation of the sites continue by poor land management practices as well as
disease and invasive growth. Only swift and aggressive management practices will preserve these
natural elements for future generations.
The $70,000 will not be able to accomplish all the land management goals the city has for the entire
site. However, this grant will allow the city to aggressively begin restorative and protective work of the
area and fully prioritize and understand the net impact of the work needing to be done. It is envisioned
that future grant applications will be requested in this area as we better understand the scope of work
and management of the entire site.
Recommendation
Recommend staff apply for the MN Department of Natural Resources Community Partners Legacy
Grant in the amount of $70,000 to restore and rehabilitate prairie and forest plant community's in the
Gateway North and West Draw Park areas.
Prepared by.
Joseph Walton
Friends of the Mississippi River
360 North Robert Street, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55101
Ph: 651 - 222 -2193 x33
January, 2012
Gateway North Open Space Natural
Resource Management Plan
This Natural Area Management Plan and Work Plan has been reviewed
and approved by:
Landowner
Date:
John Burbank, Senior Planner, City of Cottage Grove, MN
Minnesota LandTrust
Date:
Anne Murphy, T4 eConservation Stewardship Director
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. ............................... 52 -5
LANDSCAPECONTEXT ..................................................................................... ...........................�� -0
SITE GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER ............................... .............................. ...........................1214
SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY ..................................................... ............................... ...........................1243
RARESPECIES ........................................................................... ............................... ..........................16246
HISTORICVEGETATION .......................................................... ............................... .........................16216
HISTORIC AND EXISTING LAND USE .................................. ............................... ...........................249
WATERRESOURCES ................................................................ ............................... ..........................20220
Groundwater Recharge or Infiltration Areas .................................. ............................... ..........................20229
Stormwater Management Issues ......................................................... ............................... ..........................20220
Ecological ...................................................................................... ............................... ..........................21224
ADJACENT LAND USE ............................................................................................... ........................Z.2 -2-3
OakWil t .......................................................................................................... ............................... ..........................20226
BurOak Blight ............................................................................................................................. ..........................2722b
EXISTING LAND COVER & ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......
27
OAK FOREST, MESIC SUBTYPE (35 ac) (2.4 ac) ............................ ............................... ..........................31224
DRY PRAIRIE, BEDROCK BLUFF SUBTYPE (7.2 acres) ............... ............................... ..........................34234
OAK WOODLAND - BRUSHLAND (13.9 acres) (2.5 ac) ................. ............................... ..........................39239
MEDIUM -TALL GRASS, ALTERED NON- NATIVE DOMINATED GRASSLAND (2.0 acres)......
42242
GRASSLAND ON PIPELINE RIGHT OF WAY (1.1 Acres) ............. ............................... ..........................42242
11 to 25% IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (9.2 Acres) ........................... ............................... ..........................42242
PAVEMENT WITH 91 to 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER (0.8 Acres) ......................... ..........................43243
RESTORATION PROCESS ......................................................... ............................... .........................45245
Restoration s ....................................................................................... ............................... ..........................43245
Target Plant Communities ....................................................................... ............................... .........................4
-6
Restoration ................................................................................... ............................... ..........................47247
Site -Wide Invasive Woody Plant Removal / Control ...................... ............................... .........................48249
Restoration Priorities ................................................................................ ............................... .........................4824
-8
Prescribed Burns —More Information .............................................. ............................... ..........................52232
Long -term Monitoring and Maintenance ......................................... ............................... ..........................53253
RESTORATION SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATES ......... ............................... ..........................53253
WO RKPLAN ..................................................................................................... ...............................
59: 2 .58
APPENDICES ............................................................................ ............................... ............................124
APPENDIX Information Sources ........................................................................ ............................1.24
APPENDIX B Plant Species for Restoration at GNOS Property ...................... ............................121
APPENDIX C Plant Species Recorded at the Gateway North Open Space Property .............12 4
Appendix D. Methods for Controlling Exotic, Invasive Plant Species ........... ...........................124
Appendix Ecological Contractors ....................................... ............................... ............................124
Friends of the Mississippi River 3 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figures
1. Natural Easement Map
2. Landscape Context Map
3. Surficial Geology Map
4. Soils and Topography Map
S. Pre - settlement Vegetation Map
6. Historical Aerial Photo, 1947
7. Historical Ground Photo, late 1800's
8. Historical Ground Photo, 1960's
9. Adjacent Landuse, Aerial Photo, 2010
10. Ecological Subsections Map
11. Existing Landcover Map
12. Target Plant Communities Map
Tables
1. Soils
2. Notable Features of the GNOS Property
3. Restoration Target Plant Communities for Existing Landcover
4. Restoration Schedule and Cost Estimates
S. Long -Term Management Schedule and Cost Estimates
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resource Management Plan presents the site analysis and recommended
management and land use activities for the 54 -acre natural area called the Gateway North
Open Space (GNOS) property. This document can be changed only by written agreement by
both the City of Cottage Grove and Minnesota LandTrust.
The GNOS property is owned by the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota. The eastern 43 acres
of the GNOS property have a conservation easement on them. The western arm of the
GNOS property, formerly known as "Camel Humps ", consists of approximately 11 acres that
do not have a conservation easement on them, but are designated Park and Open
Spac by the City of Cottage Grove. Most of this property is located on steep
slopes. Only the bluff top and the center of the woodland actually have relatively flat
terrain. The site is bounded by Highway 61 to the southwest, and a combination of open
space and residential development to the north, east, and west. The Mississippi River is
nearby, approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest.
The most notable feature of this property is that it contains a remnant bluff prairie. This
bluff prairie, technically called a "Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern Subtype), UPs13c,
was noted as an "element occurrence" by the Minnesota County Biological Survey (M CBS)
in 1987, and was ranked with "fair estimated viability" and had an S -rank of "S3 ". The
native plant community (NPC) types and subtypes recognized in Minnesota have been
assigned conservation status ranks (S- ranks) that reflect the risk of elimination of the
community from Minnesota. There are five ranks:
S1= critically imperiled
S2 = imperiled
S3 = vulnerable to extirpation
S4 = apparently secure; uncommon but not rare
S5 = secure, common, widespread, and abundant
These ranks are determined using methodology developed by the conservation
organization Nature Serve and its member natural heritage programs in North America. S-
ranks were assigned to Minnesota's NPC types and subtypes based on information
compiled by DNR plant ecologists on: 1) geographic range or extent; 2)area of range
occupied; 3) number of occurrences; 4) number of good occurrences, or percent area of
occurrences with good viability and ecological integrity; 5) environmental specificity; 6)
long -term trend; 7) short -term trend; 8) scope and severity of major threats; and 9)
intrinsic vulnerability.
Notes from the MCBS record describe the dry bluff prairie "on a southwest - facing
sandstone bluff above Highway 61 ", and that "the prairie was dominated by native
graminoids (little blue stem, side oats grama, hairy grama, Schweinitz's flatsedge, plains
muhly grass" 1. The soils are derived from disintegrating sandstone that outcrops along the
upper slope. One cliff has a sand cave that is approximately fifteen feet deep. The prairie
has been altered by encroachment of woody species including smooth sumac, poison ivy,
Friends of the Mississippi River 5 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
boxelder, and common buckthorn. Smooth brome, an introduced invasive grass from
Europe, dominates to the east and also at the top of the bluff.
The rest of the site is comprised of former oak woodland and savanna, which is now
overgrown with woody vegetation and is more forest -like. The woodlands have a great
deal of topographic relief with several ravines and ridges that wind through the property.
Some very large old trees, mainly oaks, are growing on the property, which impart a
mature character to the woodlands /forests.
Prior to European settlement, this site sat right on the border of two landcover types:
prairie to the south and "oak openings and barrens" (today referred to as savanna) to the
north. The landscape would have been much more open than today, with primarily prairie
and scattered groves of scrubby oaks and shrubs. The composition is almost reversed
today, dominated by woodland with scattered small prairie openings including a few nodes
of prairie scattered mainly throughout the southern portion of the property,.
Falling within the "St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines" ecological subsection (Figure
10), this site represents an excellent opportunity to retain and restore habitat for wildlife
species. There are several potential Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) that
could be harbored at the GNOS property, and that will be a focus of this plan. SGCNs are
defined as animal species whose populations are identified as being rare, declining, or
vulnerable in Minnesota or are declining in a substantial part of their range outside of
Minnesota (MN DNR, 2006. Tomorrow's Habitatfor the Wild and Rare). Habitat loss and
degradation has been the primary causes of problems for SGCNs species in the subsection,
with prairie, oak savanna, and grassland currently containing the most species, so the
GNOS property has the potential for significant conservation value in the region. The DNR
recommends to stabilize and increase SGCN populations in oak savanna and prairie areas
by managing invasive species, using prescribed fire and other practices to maintain
savanna and prairie, to encourage restoration efforts, to manage grasslands adjacent to
native prairie to enhance habitat, and to provide technical assistance and protection
opportunities to interested individuals and organizations. These are also the top priorities
of this management plan and will be explored in depth herein.
The purpose of this management plan is to:
• Identify the existing ecological conditions on the property
• Identify best management practices to maximize wildlife values, and retain and
improve water quality and increase community diversity
• Document allowable uses and activities of the property
Specific ecological and cultural goals for this property are to:
• Increase coverage and diversity of native plant species and reduce non - native
species
Friends of the Mississippi River 6 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
• Provide connectivity with other natural areas in the landscape and along the river
corridor
• Maintain and manage the property for water quality by controlling runoff and
nutrient loading
• Create a model for responsible private land stewardship
• Utilize this property to guide construction and surface water management activities
on adjacent land (if developed) in a manner that protects and fosters natural
community establishment
0 Utilize this property to enhance and expand the ecological functions of the property
Friends of the Mississippi River 7 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
SITE INFORMATION
Owner name, address, city/township, county and phone:
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
7516 80th Street South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Contact Person: John M. Burbank, AICP, Senior Planner
651 - 458 -2825
Township, range, section: T2 7N, R2 1W, Sections 7 Southeast 1 /a and
T2 7N, R2 1W, Section 8, Southwest 1 /4.
Watershed: Mississippi River
Watershed District: South Washington County
Parcel Identification Numbers:
0702721420007, 0702721410004, 0702721410008, 0802721330052, and
0802721320011.
Natural Area Conservation Easement: 43 acres, to be held by the City of Cottage Grove
(Figure 1). 11 acres designated City Park- and Open Space by the City of Cottage Grove and
not under conservation easement, but to be managed as a whole with the conservation
easement land.
The conservation purpose of the Easement is to provide significant public benefit by
preserving and protecting in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Protected Property.
The Easement allows for public access, planned vegetation management and limited
infrastructure development related to the creation of a scenic overlook..
Element occurrence: There is one element occurrence on the property, which is not a
specific species but rather an entire assemblage of them, a community. The community is
called "Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern) and it's Native Plant Community Code is
UPs13c. This occurrence was last observed in 1987 by Minnesota County Biological Survey
staff (J. C. Almendinger) from the Mn DNR. It was ranked as "fair estimated viability" and
its State -Rank was "S3 ".
r - - - Formatted: Space Before: 0.01 line, After:
0.01 line
Friends of the Mississippi River 8 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figure I
NATURAL AREA EASEMENT
® Sections
parcels wash
Blodlversdy Moderate Areas
Data Source: MN DNR, Data Deli 1 :20,000
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
wd
cc
Friends of the Mississippi River 9 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
��
I
i
a,
a
® Sections
parcels wash
Blodlversdy Moderate Areas
Data Source: MN DNR, Data Deli 1 :20,000
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet
wd
cc
Friends of the Mississippi River 9 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
Proximity to established greenways
Several different greenway corridor - planning efforts have taken place in Washington
County to designate the most important parcels to consider for permanent protection
and /or natural resource restoration, based on various ecological criteria. This property is
not officially in any existing greenway corridors, but it is located along the Mississippi River
bluffs, a globally important migratory bird corridor. It is also tenuously connected to a
greenway corridor that runs along a trail on the north side of Hwy 61, which goes
northwest for about 1.5 miles, then goes eastward and slightly north for about 5 miles
(across Military Road and County Rd 19), then heads south for about 4 to 5 miles through
natural open spaces and meets Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park and back again to Hwy
61. The weak link or "pinch point" in this corridor is the narrow lane between Hwy 61 and
Goodview Ave S. and Goodview Bay. If this lane could be somehow widened or enhanced it
would allow wildlife to move through and connect to the greater corridor to the north and
east. This is something for the City to consider.
The GNOS property is very near one arm of the Metro Conservation Corridors (MCC), a
regional land protection plan of the DNR (Figure 2). FMR will petition the DNR to include
this property in the next update of the MCC in 2012.
Ecological significance and wildlife value
The GNOS easement property is included in an area that was delineated by the Minnesota
DNR as having moderately significant biodiversity. They compared many natural and open
space sites across the county to develop this ranking as part of the Minnesota County
Biological Survey that started in the 1980's. This ranking was based on the remnant bluff
prairie. Not much prairie remains in this ecological subsection (St. Paul Baldwin Plains and
Moraines), so it is important to protect, restore, and, if possible, expand every remnant (MN
DNR, 2006. Tomorrow's Habitatfor the Wild and Rare).
The areas surrounding the GNOS property are currently developed on three sides, west,
south, and east, and new homes were being constructed on the north side at the time this
document was being prepared, so the "urban pressure" on this property is great. Providing
connectivity to conservation corridors is the key to providing enough space for genetically
viable populations for many wildlife species here.
Friends of the Mississippi River 10 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
highways
— Biodiversily Moderate Areas
e rare features
Parks
McCC_2007 revised
Data Source: Mn Data Deli, ON
FIGURE 2 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
1:120,000
2 Miles n
1
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Headings, Bold,
Add City Parks and Open Space Laver to show corridors and connectivity to study area, Font color: Accent 1
- -- -
------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change 2011eateway... label to GNOS Study Area
Friends of the Mississippi River 11 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
2011 Gateway conservatlon easements
SITE GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER
The surficial geology of the site consists of three main types: dissected bedrock, superior
lobe deposits, and post - glacial fluvial deposits (Figure 3). The dissected bedrock is St. Peter
sandstone of middle Ordovician origin, which is discontinuously exposed generally mantled
by less than five feet of sandy to rocky colluvium and loess (Meyer, Baker, and Patterson,
1990). The superior deposits, which occupy the majority of the site, are outwash sand,
loamy sand, and gravel; cobbly in places; commonly overlain by two to five feet of loess.
The outwash plains are highly collapsed in places, particularly over buried bedrock valleys,
owing to ice -block melt out. These deposits were laid down by Superior Lobe meltwater
that flowed from the ice front to lay down wide plains of outwash (So). Following the
retreat of the Superior Lobe, the Grantsburg sublobe (an offshoot of the large Keewatin Des
Moines Lobe) advanced upon the site.
The sediment load from this sublobe
differed from that of the earlier ice
advances, in that it contained abundant
silicaceous shale. Meltwater from the
receding Grantsburg sublobe and Des
Moines lobe cut the upper terrace level
within the Mississippi River valley. The
southern outlet stream of Glacial Lake
Agassiz, Glacial River Warren, followed
the present course of the Minnesota River
valley to St. Paul, and then flowed down
the Mississippi River valley, cutting the
wide middle- and low -level terraces
preserved in southwestern Washington
County
The Prairie du Chien contains the primary
aquifer that is used for drinking water
throughout the region. Although not as
close to the surface as other bedrock
formations in this location, the sensitivity
of the Prairie du Chien groundwater
system to pollution is ranked as high, since
there is very little confining layer between Legend on map
the surface and the bedrock layer. High
means that contaminants will probably reach the system in a matter of weeks to years.
This has heavy implications on how management of this site should proceed and on what
should be allowed and not allowed on this site, in terms of potential pollution and
contaminants.
Friends of the Mississippi River 12 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figure 3. Surficial Geology. Change
SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY
The soil types are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 4. The predominant
soil types of the site are Brodale flaggy loam (488F), Waukegan silt loam (41113, C), and
Dickman sandy loam (3276). The other prominent soil type is the exposed bedrock,
Dorerton -Rock outcrop complex (1819F). Other soils present are Chetek sandy loam
(155B, C, D), Mahtomedi loamy sand (454D, F), and Hubbard loamy sand (713).
Table 1. Soils.
*WD = well drained, SED = somewhat excessively drained, ED = excessively drained
* *HEL = Highly erodible PHEL = Partially highly erodible NHEL = Not highly erodible
Friends of the Mississippi River 13 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Hydric
Soil
Percent
(Yes
Drain-
Erod-
Code
Soil Name
Sloe
Acres
Soil Tamil
or No )
age*
ibility' ''°
Loamy skeletal,
Brodale flaggy
25 to
carbonatic, mesic entic
488F
loam
65
20
Ha ludolls
N
ED
HEL
Fine -silty over sandy, or
Waukegan silt
sandy skeletal mixed,
4118
loam
1 to 6
7.4
mesic Typic Ha ludolls
N
WD
PHEL
Fine -silty over sandy, or
Waukegan silt
sandy skeletal mixed,
411C
loam
6 to 12
6.1
1 mesic Typic Ha ludolls
N
WD
PHEL
Fine -silty over sandy, or
Waukegan silt
sandy skeletal mixed,
411
loam TOTAL
-
13.5
mesic Typic Ha ludolls
N
WD
PHEL
Dorerton -rock
outcrop
25 to
Loamy skeletal, mixed,
1819F
complex
65
10.6
mesic Typic Ha ludalfs
N
WD
HEL
Dickman sandy
Sandy, mixed, mesic
3278
loam
1 to 6
5.1
Typic Ha ludolls
N
SED
PHEL
Chetek sandy
Coarse - loamy, mixed
155B
loam
1 to 6
1.1
Eurtic Glossoboralfs
N
SED
PHEL
Chetek sandy
Coarse - loamy, mixed
155C
loam
6 to 12
1.4
Eutirc Glossoboralfs
N
SED
PHEL
Chetek sandy
Coarse - loamy, mixed
155
loam TOTAL
-
2.5
Eutric Glossoboralfs
N
SED
PHEL
Sandy, mixed
Hubbard loamy
Udorthentic
7B
sand
1 to 6
1.4
Ha loborolls
N
ED
HEL
Mahtomedi
12 to
Mixed, frigid, Typic
454D
loamy sand
18
0.6
Udi samments
N
ED
HEL
Mahtomedi
25 to
Mixed, frigid, Typic
454F
loamy sand
65
0.4
U lipsamments
N
ED
HEL
Mahtomedi
loamy sand
Mixed, frigid, Typic
454
TOTAL
1
Udi samments
N
ED
HEL
TOTAL ALL SOILS
54.1
*WD = well drained, SED = somewhat excessively drained, ED = excessively drained
* *HEL = Highly erodible PHEL = Partially highly erodible NHEL = Not highly erodible
Friends of the Mississippi River 13 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
The letters in the code indicate the percent slope, with B =1 to 6 %, C = 6 to 12 %, D =12 to
18 %, and F = 25 to 65% slopes. As can be seen, many of the soils on this property contain
very steep slopes.
Soil formation is the result of the interaction of five soil- forming factors: parent material,
climate, organisms, topographic position or slope, and time (Foth, 1990). Taken
collectively, these factors can help determine the dominant floral and faunal communities
that helped form the soils. Brodale, Waukegan, Dickman, and Hubbard are mollisolls, which
are prairie soils, generally deep, dark in color, and rich in cations, and thus would have
been dominated by graminoid vegetation (prairie or savanna) pre - settlement.
The Dorerton and Chetek soil units are alfisols, which are generally considered to be forest
soils, and thus would have likely supported forests and /or woodlands in pre- settlement
times. An exception to this would be the Dorerton soils where the slope is very steep and
southwest - facing: this would have been very dry and thus would have burned frequently
enough to have been dominated by prairie. Thus the presence of the "bluff prairie" today.
The Dorerton soil that has the northeast - facing slope (on the opposite side of the ridge
from the bluff prairie) would have likely been either dry oak woodland or savanna, since it
would have been moister and thus seen fewer fires. The top of the ridge would have been
either woodland or savanna or alternating between the two, depending on weather
conditions and fire frequency.
There are no wetlands on this property or hydric soils. All of the soils on the property are
either well- drained, or excessively well- drained, and they do not pond or accumulate
organic matter. There is a great potential, however, for erosion, considering the high
percentage of steep slopes on the property. Care should be taken to not denude these
highly erodible slopes, or much sediment will potentially erode away to the lower spots at
the bottoms of slopes and in ravines and depressions on slopes. Maintaining herbaceous
vegetation is the best way to prevent erosion, since the fine roots of these types of plants
holds onto the fine soil particles.
There are two caves that are located in the Dorerton soil unit, on the steep outcropped
bedrock face. The largest one is on the southwest - facing cliff and another is on the western
end, facing west.
The topography of the property ranges quite widely, from 950 feet above sea level down to
790, a difference of 160 feet This difference is quite dramatically displayed on the bluffs
side of the property. Views of the surrounding landscape are quite stunning from the high
vantage points of the bluff ridges. A long stretch of the Mississippi River valley can be seen
from on top of the bluff ridge. The top of the ridge is relatively flat, but as it extends
westward, the elevation drops down to that of the highway.
The east side of the property also has quite steep, east - facing, and some south-facing,
slopes, occupied by oak woodland /forest. Several ravines cut through the wooded portions
of the property. These ravines are rather broad and not very steep.
Friends of the Mississippi River 14 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Friends of the Mississippi River 15 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figure 4. Soils and Topography. Change Legend on Map
RARE SPECIES
The one record of element of occurrence is not for any particular species, but rather for a
group of them, namely the plant community called "bluff prairie ". There is not mention of
any rare or state - listed species within this property, and none was observed by FMR
ecologists during field surveys. However, there may be some rare species present that
were not found yet, and it is recommended to monitor for them during different parts of
the year, so as to have a better chance of encountering them.
HISTORIC VCGEIAIIV IY
One of the best information sources
available on plant communities that were
present at the time of European
settlement comes from the 1850's Public
Land Surveyor (PLS) notes, which
recorded plant species (usually "bearing
trees ") at each one -mile node. A
compilation of those notes was converted
into a map showing the plant
communities of the entire state
(Marschner 1974). The region where the
GNOS property is located was on the
border of two cover classes: "oak
openings and barrens" and "prairie"
(Figure 5). Oak openings and barrens is
an area that consisted of patches of
scrubby oaks and shrubs with many
prairie "openings ", similar to what we
would today call savanna. Prairie was an
area dominated by tall and short to
medium sized grasses and fortis (wild
flowers), with patches of shrubs and very
few to no trees. Note that the soils data and Figure S. Pre - settlement Vegetation.
the pre - settlement vegetation data concur. Change Legend on mao
The only historical aerial photo that could be found was from 1947 (Figure 6). This photo
is slightly skewed to the northeast, so that the property boundary should be moved slightly
down to the southwest compared to the photo. Nevertheless, the photo shows that the
GNOS site was open on the bluff slopes and completely covered with canopy in the
woodlands. There were, however, some large rectangles that represent areas that were
cleared for agricultural fields, one on the western flank and a couple on the eastern flank.
These fields were presumably on fairly level ground. The western one lines up with part of
what today is the pipeline easement. One of the eastern ones lines up with what is today a
trail /gravel road, and the other one lines up with the southern half of the far eastern
Friends of the Mississippi River 16 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
�aoweoe.- e►.a.mn�ou. N.y. e.".� t:eo,aoo
M.a Btlbn Fa.�
slope —an area that is relatively degraded today. This helps explain why these areas today
are disturbed /degraded.
Data Source Mn Data Dek D?4R
1,000 500 0 1,000 Feet N Mal
1:10,000 V
Figure 6. Historical aerial photo from 1947.
Friends of the Mississippi River 17 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
It is hard to tell how many fires would have occurred or been suppressed in the 70 to 100
years since European settlement that led up to 1947, the year of the historical aerial photo,
but it is likely that many were suppressed. Often times fires were started from sparks
caused by railroads, and this may have been the case with the Camel's Humps site, since the
rail line is so close at the bottom of the bluff, but its hard to determine for sure. If fire
suppression did occur, the woodlands would have had ample time to fill in with woody
vegetation. From the photo it appears that the undisturbed ridge tops and wooded ravines
of the site were fairly densely wooded. Although the bluff slope was still quite open, it
appears to be slowly starting to fill in with brush.
Two other historical photos were supplied by the City of Cottage Grove (Figure 7). One
depicted several wagons from the late 1800's (exact date unknown) with the Camels
Humps in the background. This photo was taken from the Belden farm, across the curent
location of State Highway 61 fAw looking towards the site from the southwest. It certainly
is close enough to get a fairly good view of what this area looked like in the late 1800's.
This is a priceless photo, for it actually shows conditions on the ground. It is evident that
the steep bluff slopes were very open, with grasslands completely covering them except for
a few redcedar. It also shows the ridge tops were filled with trees. The trees cannot be
identified, but they look like oaks and other deciduous oak woodland associates. It is
possible that even by the time this photo was taken, the oak woodland on top may have
been filling in, as opposed to perhaps 50 or 100 years prior.
Friends of the Mississippi River 18 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figure 7. Historical ground photo from across the curent location of State Highway 61
river- from the GNOS property taken at the Belden Farm sometime in the late 1800's. Note
the "Camels Humps" in the background of the photo just above the Standard Oil Company
wagon and horses. Photo courtesy of City of Cottage Grove, MN.
Another historical photo is of a street sweeper on Hadley Avenue # ighway -61 looking
northwest (Figure 8), from sometime in the 1960's (1969 ?). Again, the Camels Humps can
be seen in the background of this photo. Note that the bluff slopes are still mainly open, but
several red cedars and shrubs have moved in. Also, the ridge tops are not nearly as
wooded as they were in the photo from the late 1800's. This is an interesting comparison
between the two photos and today's condition.
Figure 8. Historical photo of a street sweeper on Highway 61 sometime in the 1960's. Note
the "Camels Humps" in the background on the right side of the photo. Although not nearly as
brushy as today, note that the bluff slopes are already fairly heavily filled in with shrubs,
small deciduous trees, and redcedars, especially on the east side of the slope (right side in
this photo). It is hard to tell from this photo whether buckthorn had invaded yet, but it
probably had started by this time. Also note the sparse tree cover on the ridge top —only a
few trees compared to the late- 1800's photo in Figure 6. Photo courtesy of City of Cottage
Grove, MN.
HISTORIC AND EXISTING LAND USE
As far as can be determined, historically, portions of this site were used for agriculture, as
can be seen from the fields on the aerial photo of 1947. The fields may have been used for
pasture or for crops, it is unknown. Today, the ridge top and much of the bluff slope in the
bluff prairie are covered with smooth brome (Bromus inermis), an introduced cool- season
Friends of the Mississippi River 19 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
grass used for forage for livestock. These slopes could not have been too heavily grazed,
however, since many pockets of native bluff prairie vegetation still exist
Currently, the land is used as a passive city park. No changes have been made in the park,
in terms of trails, benches, overlooks, signage, etc. Access is through the trail to the north
of the site, from the dead end of Bur Oak Street.
WATER RESOURCES
There are no surface water resources (wetlands, lakes, streams, ponds, etc.) on the
property, per se. There are several ravines that drain spring meltwater and rainwater, but
water does not pond, pool, or collect anywhere —it infiltrates into the soil and drains off the
site. There were two small patches of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) on the
bluff top in the Oak Woodland forest cover unit, which may indicate localized seeps. Reed
canary grass is a non - native wetland grass, but it can occupy uplands as well. If seeps are
there, they may come from groundwater that is forced out due to underlying confining soils
or rock layers. More investigation of these areas is needed to determine the conditions at
there.
Groundwater Recharge or Infiltration Areas
There are no wetlands, which are typically recharge areas to groundwater, on this site. It
must be assumed, however, that since this site was rated as "high" for sensitivity of the
Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer to pollution (Balaban and Hobbs, 1990), then potentially
anywhere on this site could be a recharge or infiltration area. There are many areas of
groundwater recharge, including the ravines, depressional areas on slopes, flat or level
areas on ridge tops, gradual slopes, etc. — basically anywhere water is directed or can slow
down to infiltrate through cracks in the rock or through soil. In the bluff prairie unit, there
is precious little soil material covering the bedrock, and thus very little protection to the
aquifer below. When at all possible, do not use chemicals. If chemicals must be used,
extreme caution must be exhibited when handling and applying chemicals during
restoration activities. Spilling of chemicals could be very detrimental to the aquifer. No
mixing of chemicals or pouring of containers should be allowed on site. All mixing and
pouring should be done ahead of time and containers hauled into or out of the site.
Stormwater Management Issues
There is significant erosion potential, with highly erodible soils and steep slopes over much
of the site. On the steep bedrock bluffs there were several small to medium gullies that had
formed. One of the largest of these was near the cave in the bluff prairie unit Rainwater
runs off of the exposed sandstone and has formed a small gully at the base of the cave area.
Although the large ravines on the property have the potential to erode, there were only a
few erosion gullies that had formed recently, and nothing too urgent. Most of them were in
a stable condition when evaluated in the fall of 2011, with three exceptions:
Friends of the Mississippi River 20 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
1) The northeast part of the property has a ravine with an actively eroding slope. This
is presumably due to the nearby (to the north) residences that have increased
runoff to this ravine because of an increase in impervious surfaces from driveways,
roofs, etc. This ravine is also starting to form a deep channel at its bottom.
Controlling runoff at its source (the residential neighborhood) would help this
problem.
2) The bottom of the large ravine in the middle of the property (between OF -1 and OF-
2, atlhe south end) had some slumping of the ravine banks
3) -At the far south end of the property by the trail on a steeper south - facing slope.
Ecological Threats
The bluff prairie was mostly covered by fine- rooted vegetation (graminoids and forbs), but
it-much oif it was being invaded and converted to woody vegetation (shrubs and small
trees). It is well known that the fine roots of herbaceous vegetation is the primary factor
that holds fine soil particles in place, especially on steep slopes. Thus, a lack of graminoids
and forbs may likely lead to a situation of increased erosion and sedimentation at the bases
of steep slopes. In light of this, the fact that these slopes were covered by grasses and
wildflowers is quite a remarkable benefit. Restoration efforts on steep slopes are typically
very difficult, since seed tends to wash away. The sooner restoration of these slopes
occurs, the better, since over time, more and more woody vegetation will invade and make
it that much harder to establish native prairie.
The same may be said for the rest of the site, since steep slopes and erodible soils occur on
roughly two- thirds of the property. Throughout the site, at the bases of some of the steeper
slopes, there were very small areas of sediment accumulation and on portions of the
steeper slopes there were areas of surface erosion as evidenced by exposed root crowns of
trees. This is a chronic phenomenon that can be again attributed to the simple fact that
there is a lack of fine - rooted vegetation on these slopes. A denser vegetation layer would
act to break the impact of the raindrop and dissipate the energy of stormwater running on
these slopes. Also, fine - rooted plants, such as grasses, sedges, ferns, etc., help hold onto
fine soil particles better than do coarser- rooted plants like trees and shrubs.
The forest floor throughout the GNOS property did not have a very thick duff layer, having
a thin organic surface horizon and accumulation of only one year's leaf litter, much bare
soil abounded. This is primarily due to exotic earthworm invasion. No species of
earthworms were native to the northern part of the U.S., since the last glaciation, over
10,000 years ago (Frelich and Holdsworth, 2002). During the last century, epigeic (litter
dwelling), endogeic (soil dwelling), and anecic (deep burrowing) species of earthworms
(Frelich and Holdsworth, 2002) have been introduced (primarily as cast -off bait from
anglers). Since then, they have become established and are very invasive in our native
woodlands and forests. These species move into new areas in waves, one species following
another, with ultimately the largest worms, night - crawlers (Lumbricus terrestris), invading
and establishing. Where soils /systems have evolved without them, these earthworm
species, contrary to popular opinion, are not good for the soil — tunneling into the top
layers of soil and ravenously consuming large amounts of leaf litter. The result of their
Friends of the Mississippi River 21 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
activities is a net soil compaction and a marked increase in the duff layer turnover rate (the
time it takes for the litter layer to be decomposed and turn into humus). Thus, where there
used to be several inches of light, fluffy duff layer in our native forests and woodlands, now
there is only a trace or often none at all, with compacted, bare soil prevalent. This situation
can then lead to detrimental impacts on surface water, due to increased erosion and
nutrient runoff from affected areas into nearby lakes and streams.
The lack of duff layer and soil compaction have negative ramifications on native forb
populations, especially spring ephemerals, which have evolved under conditions that
provide thick, fluffy duff layers. Thin duff layers have another important repercussion:
common buckthorn seeds and other non - native species such as garlic mustard, readily
germinate in bare soil and in a thin layer of duff. Once buckthorn is introduced to an area
that has been "wormed ", it, which spells yet greater degradation to the woodland
ecosystem. Once a few large seed - producing trees take hold in an area, a virtual carpet of
buckthorn seedlings will radiate outward from each "mother plant", thus displacing or
preventing native plants from re- establishing these areas. The berries of buckthorn (and
exotic honeysuckles) are dispersed by birds throughout the woodland. Trees that offer
perches for birds are typically choked with buckthorn plants growing under their crowns.
Hence, buckthorn can rapidly come to dominate a vulnerable woodland or forest, in a
matter of 30 to 50 years (a "blink of an eye" in terms of ecological time scales).
Another factor of the woodland decline is over - browsing /over - grazing. Areas that were
pastured by cattle or sheep received heavy grazing pressure that was unknown previously
Native grazers would move around often and not concentrate on one plot of land for long
periods of time. This allowed for a very diverse forb layer to thrive. With the advent of
cattle, introduced by Euro- Americans in the last century and a half, that grazing pattern
changed, since cattle will concentrate their grazing much longer and their impacts are
much greater. Many of the native forbs simply could not endure this new pressure.
Today, browsing, not grazing, probably has a greater impact on our woodlands, since the
major browsers are deer. Deer populations have greatly increased over the last century
due to both direct and indirect causes. Indirectly, due to the vast amounts of agricultural
land that have been created at the expense of native forest, woodland, savanna, and prairie.
Directly, due to the active management for deer hunting by wildlife managers. It is well
known that deer prefer "edge" habitat: areas of land with large amounts of long, linear
forest /woodland edge, so they can use both the open areas to feed and the wooded areas
for cover. Fragmentation of forests and managing for large gaps and lots with linear
woodlands have greatly increased the "edge effect" in Minnesota. This, plus the destruction
of wolf populations, has resulted in an explosion in the deer population within the last 75
years. Deer, although they will eat them, do not prefer buckthorn or exotic honeysuckle —if
given the choice they prefer many of the native forbs, shrubs, and tree seedlings.
Therefore, this greatly increases the browsing pressure on the few natives that can survive
earthworm and buckthorn invasions. One result of this is the lack of oak regeneration,
typical of such woodlands.
Friends of the Mississippi River 22 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Lastly, the lack of fire due to fire suppression, over the course of the last century and a half,
has also negatively impacted the ecosystems of our native woodlands and savannas. Fire
acts to kill small woody seedlings that might otherwise grow into mature trees and shrubs,
thus keeping the understory of woodland and the ground layer of savannas open. Because
of this, wildflowers, grasses, sedges, and ferns can thrive. When fires were allowed (and
encouraged, by native Americans), a very diverse and varied herbaceous ground layer
flourished under our woodlands and savannas, with hundreds of species occurring. Today,
because of a lack of fire, woodlands have succeeded to forests and savannas to woodlands.
Adding in the other three factors, earthworms, buckthorn, and deer, results in a degraded,
vulnerable ecosystem, with only a few species remaining that can survive the onslaught.
In summary, due to several factors over the last 150 years, our woodlands and forests in
Minnesota have undergone a transformation of vulnerability, degradation, and decline.
The woodlands and savannas of the GNOS property are typical of this situation. Some areas
are worse than other, however. The large ravine west of the new housing development has
a relatively low level of buckthorn invasion —the buckthorn plants are not too large and
not too many mature, berry producing "mother plants" were found. There is still time to
save this area before it is totally choked by buckthorn. The eastern ravine and slopes are
much more advanced in the invasion process —they have taller and denser buckthorn and
more large, berry- producing plants. Thus, these eastern ravines and slopes are a lesser
priority than the ones to the west side of the property. They have been invaded by
earthworms, invaded by buckthorn, and over - browsed by deer. They have also been
transformed by fire suppression. The bare soil and sedimentation accumulations are just
one effect of this situation, which has developed over the course of the past150 years, and
will not be easily reversed. However, with proper, well -timed management, restoration of
the GNOS property woodlands is possible and likely (see Management Recommendations
section below).
ADJACENT LAND USE
The GNOS property is surrounded and tightly bounded by urban land use (Figure 9). To
the south and west is Highway 61 and abutted by two large buildings to the south. Beyond
Highway 61 the landuse ishigh_ density residential. To the west is Hardwood , , - Formatted: Highlight
Avenue, and beyond that is a parcel of forested open space with a couple of low - density
houses on the north side of it. To the north is low- density residential, on the west side of
the north, and on the east side of the north is medium - density residential. Call John on this
description. We have Large lot development on private well and septic and low density,
medium density and high density residential in the MUSA.
Friends of the Mississippi River 23 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figure 9. Adjacent Land Use surrounding the GNOS Property. 2010 color aerial
photograph. Change Legend
A large piece of land projects about 1000 feet into the north side, in the middle where the
topography is relatively flat, which virtually bisects the GNOS property. Low
density residential housing was being constructed on this projection of land at the time of
the field survey. This "peninsula" of non - natural land is a disturbance to the surrounding
parkland, and ramifications will affect the surrounding parkland both presently and in the
future. There was already evidence of increased erosion of ravine slopes and the
beginnings of channelization of the bottoms of some of the ravines close to the disturbance.
Zones of cleared vegetation were evident adjacent to the new residential road and houses.
Increased stormwater runoff and reduced infiltration will impact the GNOS property
monitoring should be performed often (probably more than annually) to keep a finger on
the pulse of the changes to the surrounding parkland.
Not only stormwater issues, but also invasive species issues will be problematic due to this
"residential peninsula ". Disturbance usually leads to an advent of weed species, both
woody and herbaceous. Increased edge effect favors weed growth, too. Increased human
traffic in the area will vector (physical introduction of) new species (some potentially
Friends of the Mississippi River 24 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
�aye iay.wu
3011 GO:away cenxMliOn aaaenxnb �
0.3 0.15 0 0.3 Ftilea �,
invasive) to the adjacent park, creating a sort of a "portal" to the natural plant communities
there. Ornamentals that people plant in their yards can potentially escape into adjacent
natural areas. Also, disturbance can lead to an increase in the incidence of oak wilt disease
(see section below).
Not all of these negative impacts can be prevented, but with education and outreach, they
can be ameliorated. The more residents know about their potential impacts, the lesser the
impact can be. A greater understanding of the natural communities that surround them
and pre -dated their occupation of this site should help reduce the negative impacts, also.
Educating through and outreach campaigns and neighborhood meetings, forming local
nature clubs or societies, posting interpretive signs, distributing maps, etc., can all help
protect the resource.
As was discussed at the beginning of this document, the potential to link the GNOS property
with conservation corridors is a vital strategy for promoting the health of wildlife
populations here. Since it is virtually surrounded by urban landuses, this will be difficult to
accomplish. There is opportunity to connect on the northwest end of the property, going
along the highway to the northwest, which leads eventually to a greater corridor that
widely arcs around to the area. Connecting to the west, across Hardwood Avenue, into the
open space woodland, would be beneficial, but "wildlife bridges" would have to be
constructed, which are very expensive.
Salt spray from Highway 61 is potential impact, but there is a buffer between the GNOS
property and the highway. However, salt may still impact the plants on the edge. Many of
the native dry bluff prairie plants should be resistant to salt damage, whereas trees tend to
be heavily impacted (high twig mortality and abundant "witches' brooms "). This should
not be a concern, since trees will be removed from the bluff prairie unit here.
Noise pollution from the nearby Highway 61 is a problem. The height of the bluff and slope
near the highway will help reduce noise levels from the highway, especially if one is on the
back side of the bluff, but the majority of the bluff prairie will be continually exposed to
highway noise. Not much can be done about this, unfortunately, short of erecting a wall or
sound barrier. Planting trees is not recommended to reduce sound levels, since they are
not appropriate in a bluff prairie.
The new White Pines buildings ( Senior HousingD°rement Home to the south of the GNOS
property, on E. Point Douglas Rd S., doesn't really pose any stormwater runoff problems,
since it is down -slope from the GNOS property. The native plant community that is to be
restored near this building is Oak Savanna, which should be an amenity to the users of this
building. One possible problem could be smoke drifting from the park during controlled
burns. Proper planning and notification or building occupants should avert conflicts,
however. In fact, all adjacent residents should be notified prior to any controlled burning
events at any time, and smoke management should always be part of any burn plan.
Burning the bluff prairie should not be problematic for Highway 61, since it is up high
enough to have smoke go onto the road. Nevertheless, wind direction from the south
would be advisable when burning the bluff prairie. Wind direction from the north would
Friends of the Mississippi River 25 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
be desirable for woodland burns on the north side of the property. In general, dividing the
property up into burn units is recommended, since the property is so large and interfaces
with so many urban landuses.
Impacts of the nearby residential and commercial developments are increased stormwater
runoff, increased introduction of invasive species (garden plants and ornamentals that may
"escape" into the natural areas and become invasive), mowing clippings that accumulate on
the border, and clearing of native vegetation. Solutions to these potential problems may be
education and outreach of the neighboring residents. FMR may be available to assist with
this endeavor.
Oak Wilt
The "peninsula" of land upon which new residential homes are currently being constructed
represents a threat to the ecological stability of the GNOS woodlands and forests, since the
incidence of tree wounding will most likely increase. When oak trees are wounded they are
more susceptible to oak wilt disease since beetles, vectors of the disease (they carry fungal
spores on their bodies), are attracted to the scent of fresh wounds. Thus, the incidence of
oak wilt in the GNOS will most likely go up. The tree protection measures required in the
City Ordinance should be adhered to during construction. Oak wilt is a very serious fungal
disease (Ceratosystis fagacaerum.) of oak trees that results in tree mortality. Once the oak
wilt fungus becomes established in one tree, it can move through common root systems to
adjacent trees of the same species —red oaks to other red oaks, and white oaks to other
white oaks —thus the formation of an "infection center ". Infection centers spread rapidly
through red oaks and slowly through white oaks —bur oaks are intermediate in spread
rate. Oak wilt can be controlled primarily through reducing the wounding of trees.
To slow the underground spread of the fungus root barriers are required. The most cost
effective method of installing root barriers is with a vibratory plow —a large, modified
backhoe that pulls a vibrating blade through the ground. The blade typically extends five
feet deep into the soil, cutting roots as it goes. This procedure can be more or less
disturbing to the soil and plant community, so deciding whether or not to root -cut should
weigh the pros and cons. Also, vibratory plows will not operate on slopes that are too steep
or soils that are too wet or too hard. For instance, vibratory plowing is not recommended
on the savanna ridgetop of the bluff prairie, since the bedrock is very close to the surface
there. Likewise, it is not recommended on the steep slopes of the site, but rather on
relatively broad, flat areas. Access is another issue. Access for the vibratory plow must be
allowed and at least a 10 -foot wide lane must be permitted for the machine to pass.
An alternative method is chemical injections into individual trees, which is used in
situations where trees are of high value and /or vibratory plowing is not an option. The
downsides of using injections are that they are more expensive, they only treat individual
trees, not groups of trees, and they must be repeated every two years to be effective.
Friends of the Mississippi River 26 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Bur Oak Blight
Bur oak blight, or "BOB" is a new fungal disease in Minnesota. BOB is caused by a species of
Tubackia fungus that was recently discovered (U of MN Forest Resources Extension, 2011).
This disease has been confirmed in several counties in Minnesota, including Ramsey and
Hennepin, so could potentially occur in Washington County too. This disease is a tree
killer, but it moves much more slowly than does Oak Wilt. It only affects bur oaks, which is
a concern at the savanna ridge top, as well as other units containing valuable bur oaks on
the GNOS site. It seems to be influenced by the frequency of rainfall, with more rainfall
resulting in conditions suitable for the disease. Symptoms occur in leaves in July and
August, with large brown, wedge- shaped necrotic lesions forming. Sometimes leaf veins
turn brown also. One of the best ways to diagnose the presence of this disease is by
examining bur oaks during the winter —if they hold onto their leaves (even just a few), this
may indicate that they are infected with BOB. Normal bur oaks drop all of their leaves
during the winter. The disease overwinters in leaf petioles and spreads throughout the
crown of the tree and potentially into other nearby trees over the span of several years.
Mortality can result, but often trees that die are located right next to ones that are
unaffected, so the rate of spread is relatively slow. Control of this disease cannot be
attained through raking and burning of fallen leaves, since many leaves remain attached to
the tree over winter. However, periodic site -wide burning would reduce the spore load,
since many fallen leaves will bear fungal spores. Researchers are condoning fungicide
injections, since the protection provided by a single injection seems to last for several
years.
EXISTING LAND COVER & ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed a system called the Minnesota Land
Cover Classification System (MLCCS), which defines and classifies all types of landcover. This
information was used as a basis for the site evaluation, which was conducted by FMR's ecologist
in the summer and fall of 2011. Recorded information included a list of plant species and their
percent coverage in each vegetation layer (tree, shrub, grass) (Appendix A), soil type, slopes,
and animal signs. Information also included ecological concerns, such as erosion, exotic species,
etc. The classification was modified as needed, based on plant species observed and the
resulting landcover types are shown in Figure 11. Each of the landcover units is summarized in
Table 3 and described in the paragraphs below.
For determining target plant communities for restoration (Table 3), we considered the historic
conditions, existing conditions, and relative effort vs. benefits. As a guideline for the target plant
community goals, we used the Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: the
Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (DNR, 2005). This book describes the system developed by
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for identifying ecological systems and native
plant community types in the state, based on multiple ecological features such as major climate
zones, origin of glacial deposit, plant composition, and so on. There are four ecological
provinces in Minnesota (prairie parkland, eastern broadleaf forest, Laurentian mixed forest, and
Friends of the Mississippi River 27 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
tallgrass aspen parkland), ten sections within the provinces, and 26 subsections (Fig. 10). The
GNOS property is classified as follows:
Ecological Province: Eastern Broadleaf Forest
Section: Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal
Subsection: St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines
Figure 10. MN DNR Ecological Subsections map for
southeastern Minnesota. Red star shows approximate
location of GNOS Property.
As stated earlier in the Historic Vegetation section, the vegetation of the GNOS
Conservation Easement property, in pre - settlement times was most likely bluff prairie on
the bluffs, and oak woodland /savanna on the rest of the property. This is still appropriate
for the site, although there has been some succession of communities. Some areas that had
been oak savanna have become oak woodland, and areas that were oak woodland are
succeeding to dry oak forest. In general, south- and west- facing slopes would now support
oak woodland and north- and east - facing slopes would tend to support dry oak forest,
without any further management to reverse succession.
The GNOS property was evaluated by a FMR ecologist in late summer and fall of 2011.
Recorded information included: primary plant species and their relative coverage; animal signs;
land use activities; and ecological concerns such as erosion, exotic species, etc. Each of the land
cover units is shown in Figure 11 and described in the paragraphs below. Photograph numbers
refer to the locations, depicted on Figure 11. The landcover classifications were based on the
Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) developed by the DNR (DNR 2005).
The names of the cover types were modified slightly for ease of use.
Friends of the Mississippi River 28 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
The following table (Table 2) is a list of "notable features" (see Figure 11 for their locations):
Feature
ID
Description
0
Patch of native grasses
1
Cave
2
Native grassland stand
3
Small prairie patch
4
Rock outcrop with prairie
node on to
5
Prairie patch, small
6
Mini cave on west end
7
Prairie openin
8
Huge basswood. 45+
inches.
9
Large bur oak
10
Corner post, wooden
11
Equisetum and sedges at
base of slope
12
Smooth sumac stand
13
Square, cement structure on
ground
14
Large, open grown bur oak
15
American hazelnut shrubs on
talus slope
16
Trail head into ravine
17
Bottom of ravine. Side -slope
erosional creep
18
Top of trail.
19
Large, old bur oak. Open
grown. Fire scar.
20
Gnarly, branchy bur oaks.
Native graminoids.
i1
�t
i
2
u
Ic
Friends of the Mississippi River 29 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
21
Huge hackberry.
22
Prairie openin
23
Barberry patch. Remov
24
Aspen grove. High-den
25
Dugout "artifact ". Car
26
Possible see RCG pat
27
Big toothed aspen stan
28
Massive red oaks
29
Small opening in OW -B
30
Large, dead bur oak.
31
3 large red oaks dead
32
Garlic mustard. Small
33
Band of ironwood on sl
34
Large basswoods.
35
Large green ash 35"
36
Large green ashes
37
Fallen large red oak at
38
Interrupted fern. Less
39
Ravine erosion on east
40
Slope clearin /disturba
Table 2. List of "Notable Features"
from Figure 11.
i1
�t
i
2
u
Ic
Friends of the Mississippi River 29 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
a
z
U
Q
QJ QJ
Q.
l
O
O
C7
x
'CI
a�
C
ca
v
ti
a�
0
tw
c
ca
a
c
4
.
W
O
m
.
0
�i
The following are descriptions of the various cover types, found on the property. The cover
types were described and designated by Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
(MLCCS). Some of the cover types were re- designated to a more appropriate type than was
designated by MLCCS. They were then arranged in order of size of area, with the largest
cover types listed first and the smallest listed last. Cover types may be represented by
multiple units of the same cover type (e.g. Oak Woodland represented by OW -1, OW -2, and
OW -3). Please refer to Figure 11(Landcover) and Figure 12 (Target Plant Communities)
throughout this section.
OAK FOREST, MESIC SUBTYPE (35 ac) (2.4 ac)
This was the largest cover type on the property. There were four units of oak forest on the
easement property: OF -1, OF -2, OF -3, and OF -4, which were scattered across the easement.
OF -1(4.8 acres) and OF -2 (7.4 acres) were located in the broad ravine in the middle of the
property. OF -3 (6.6 acres) was located in the northeast portion of the property. OF -4 (2.4
acres) was located in the northwest portion of the easement on a north - facing slope.
OF -1, occupying the east- facing slope of
the broad ravine in the middle of the
easement property, consisted of few
very large (20 to 40 inch diameter) oaks
(bur and red) scattered in groups across
the unit. These oaks occupied about 10
to 15% of the total canopy tree cover
of the unit. These oaks were typified by very large,
spreading crowns (Photo 1). Many of these trees
had large callused over branch stubs placed low
down on their trunks, indicating that they once photo 2. Old bur oak with large
had very large branches and the site was more branch stubs low down on trunk.
open than it is today (Photo 2). Also, several of
these large, old trees were actually dead, having recently died, since their bark was still
intact on their trunks (Photo 3). Some of the old oaks had fire scars at their bases, whereas
Friends of the Mississippi River 31 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
none of the younger trees did, which indicates that fire had formerly occurred on this site
probably 100 ey ars ago or so (Photo 4). Other species constituting the canopy tree layer
were a few large to medium -large (10 to 20 inch diameter) hackberry, basswood, bitternut
hickory and black cherry. No stumps were observed to indicate that the area had been
logged in the past. The dominant tree cover of the unit was the subcanopy tree layer,
constituting about 65 to 85% of the total canopy cover (Photo 5). 4 to 8 inch diameter
basswood and hackberry were most common. Other
species occurring in this layer were American elm,
bitternut hickory and a few bur and red oaks. The
shrub layer covered approximately 50 to 65% ofr the
layer and consisted primarily of buckthorn, with a few other species including red
elderberry (especially down by the bottom of the ravine), chokecherry, and Missouri
gooseberry. Shrubs were generally not very tall, being only about 4 to 6 feet high. The
density of buckthorn was not too bad in this unit, yet, with very few large berry- producing
individuals present. Managing now for
Friends of the Mississippi River 32 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
buckthorn control in this unit should be a
priority, since it is still at a level and density that can be fairly easily and successfully
controlled. The ground layer was not very diverse, with buckthorn (dominant) and a few
other species present including Pennsylvania sedge, white and yellow avens, Virginia
creeper, sweet cicely, and lopseed. There were a couple of garlic mustard plants near the
bottom of the ravine. Eliminating the garlic mustard before it gets spreads should be a
priority for this unit also. There were many patches of bare soil, and the leaf litter was very
sparse, with just a trace of leaves from the present year on the soil surface. The gully at the
bottom of the ravine did not show many signs of erosion, although one reach on the
southern end did show signs of some slow erosional creep.
OF -2, occupying the west- facing slope of the same
broad ravine in the middle of the property, was
quite different from OF -1. 01 contained more
large trees in the canopy tree layer and it also
contained ironwood in the subcanopy layer,
something OF -1 did not have (Photo 6). The
canopy tree layer covered about 60 to 85% and
consisted of a mix of hardwood tree species
including red oak, bur oak, basswood (Photo 7),
green ash, hackberry, and bitternut hickory. The
subcanopy layer contained abundant ironwood (3
to 8 inch diameter), especially in a 40- foot -wide
band stretching across
the mid to upper west -
facing slope.
Shrub and Ground
layers again were
dominated by small
buckthorn. Leaf litter
was sparse and much
bare soil was exposed.
OF -3, located in the far northeast portion of the property, is
similar to OF -1 and OF -2, in that the total canopy was 65 to 90 %,
but most of the trees were in middle size classes. There were a
few large canopy trees, mostly red oak, basswood, and green ash,
but most of the canopy consisted of smaller diameter sub-
canopy trees. The gully at the bottom of the ravine at the north
end showed signs of erosion (Photo 8). The north bank was steeper and was actively
eroding in spots. The gully was starting to form a channel, also. The residential
development to the north of this unit no doubt contributed to this erosion situation.
Friends of the Mississippi River 33 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
OF -4, located in the northwest portion of the property, north of the bluff prairie, lies on a
north- facing slope. This unit is really an overgrown woodland that is succeeding to a
layer. Buckthorn seedlings and saplings (up to 8
feet tall) were also quite dense in the ground layer
and in the shrub layer. Not many large buckthorn
shrubs were present. Many large to medium sized
stumps (Photo 10) were scattered throughout this
unit, showing evidence of what had to be a former
oak wilt infection center, which also explained the
odd clustering distribution of the trees (since
forest. The tree canopy was rather
oddly distributed, in that trees were
grouped or clustered, with expanses of
open areas between them (Photo 9).
The largest canopy trees were a few
extremely large basswoods (50+ inch
diameter) and several medium -sized
red oaks. Other tree species present
were Black cherry, American elm,
many larger red oaks had died trom disease, many
canopy gaps existed). Oak leaf density on the ground was such that the site could be
burned, so restoration to woodland is possible, but not probable, since red oaks cannot be
planted due to oak wilt. Oak- Basswood forest (MHs37) is a more likely plant community
target here.
One of the issues in facing the entire Oak Forest cover type was the lack of oak
regeneration. High deer - browsing pressure, competition from buckthorn, lack or light to
the forest floor, and reduced duff layers all contribute to this problem. Without new oaks
coming to replace old and dying ones, the oak component of this forest will be eliminated.
Without proper management, this will not be a mesic oak forest for long.
DRY PRAIRIE, BEDROCK BLUFF SUBTYPE (7.2 acres)
The MLCCS designated approximately seven acres on the steep, southwest - facing slope
along the north side of Highway 61 as "Dry Prairie, Bedrock Bluff Subtype ", or otherwise
known as `Bluff Prairie" (Photo on cover page). Not the entire seven acres was actually
Friends of the Mississippi River 34 Gateway Nortli Open Space NRMP
bitternut hickory, and a few bur oaks.
Prickly ash was prevalent in the shrub
bluff prairie, however. There were significant remnants of native bluff prairie scattered
throughout the unit, but there were also large tracts that were devoid of native
groundcover, being dominated by the introduced cool season grass, smooth brome (Photo
11). The largest concentration of bluff prairie was on the far western end of the unit (Photo
9) and one little prairie node at the far eastern end of the unit (Photo 12). Both of these
high quality areas were perched over a very shallow layer of soil that mantled the bedrock,
which outcropped in several places along the ridge top and along the steeper slopes
throughout (Photo 13). The topography of
{ q this site was quite steep, with some sheer
cliff faces. Much of the slope was covered
r r,
with loose rock (talus) that had accumulated
from the weathering of the sandstone
_ a outcrops, and made for treacherous footing
(Photo 14). Two caves were present at the
'�► ' ;, western end of the unit, a small one at the far
Friends of the Mississippi River 35 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
end (Photo 15), which faced west, and a larger, cave complex (Photo 16) at the mid -
western end, which faced southwest The vegetation surrounding both of these caves was
primarily native herbaceous species
including little bluestem, big bluestem,
muhly grass, Schweinitz's flatsedge, and
thimbleweed, but some woody brush was invading. The eastern prairie node (Photo 12)
was dominated by big bluestem and Indian grass, whereas the western end (a larger area)
[though some areas had higher
concentrations of little bluestem and
needle grass (Photo 17). There was an
area at the mid -bottom of the western end
slope, where the slope leveled out a little,
which contained equisetum, which may be
an indicator of a wetter soil; perhaps there
was a seep just under the soil surface,
emanating from a confining layers of the
soil below.
A band across the lower slope was
completely dominated by smooth brome.
The natives started to show up only at
about halfway up the slope, and then they
were patchy in spots. Much of the slope
has been invaded by woody vegetation,
and it is distributed in patches or groves and scattered single individuals. This woody
vegetation consists of both native and non - native species, including common buckthorn,
Tartarian honeysuckle, Siberian elm, eastern red cedar, Russian olive, hackberry, American
basswood, American elm, bur oak, boxelder, eastern cottonwood, black cherry, smooth
sumac, and American hazelnut. Regardless of its nativity, this bluff prairie is quite
overgrown with brush, and all of the non - native brush and most of the native brush should
be removed (see Management Recommendations section). The smooth brome could be
Friends of the Mississippi River 36 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
controlled using a combination of very carefully targeted chemical applications and late -
season burning.
Native prairie plant species found on the steep bluff slope included the following: bur oak,
American hazelnut, smooth sumac, a recumbent black raspberry species, eastern red cedar,
prairie rose, plains muhly grass, needle grass, wild rye, big bluestem, little bluestem,
sideoats grama, hairy grama, Scribner's panic grass, Indian grass, Schweinitz's flatsedge,
prairie dropseed, Missouri goldenrod, thimbleweed, stiff goldenrod, columbine, heath aster,
wild bergamot, lead plant, and prairie cinquefoil.
There was a large sumac stand on the western end of the bluff prairie slope (Photo 18), and
a few others scattered throughout the remaining slope. Generally, going west to east on the
slope, the woody vegetation got denser. At a point basically aligned with the eastern rock
outcropping and prairie node, the slope rounded a corner and turned more south and east -
facing (OW -2, south portion), which resulted in a change in the vegetation cover to more
woody vegetation (Photo 19). Here bur oak was dominant and dense enough to suppress
the growth of herbaceous ground cover.
Friends of the Mississippi River 37 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
The top of the ridge of the bluff slope was quite level and flat (Photo 20). This area will be
restored to Oak Savanna. The 1947 aerials show that much of this flat - topped ridge was
formerly a field. Scattered large, mature bur oaks abound here, with grassland dominating
between the oaks (Photo 211. Quite a few
shrubs and small trees have invaded during
the last 40 to 50 years, and should be
removed and controlled by fire. This flat -
topped ridge was also underlain by a more
mesic soil type, which would allow the
herbaceous and woody vegetation to
become large and lush. Bur oaks would be
able to grow well here because they have
thick corky bark that is heat resistant,
whereas other trees would probably not
flourish due to the high frequency of fire
introduced from the steep bluff prairie to
the southwest. The other side of the bluff
was a north - facing slope, which would be
shadier and moister, and thus have a lower
fire frequency, allowing a more mesic plant
community to flourish.
The main restoration opportunity for
this unit would be to remove woody
brush and trees. Trees and shrubs
invade a prairie when fire is not
frequent enough to kill woody seedlings.
On bluff prairies. often wind blown tree
seeds establish on precarious ledges, flat mid -
slopes, and anywhere soil has had a chance to
accumulate and the microclimate is somewhat
protected from fire. Once trees start to invade, and
a few get established, it gives birds perch sites;
seeds are then dropped by the perching birds.
Shrubs that spread via seeds /berries are readily
spread in this manner. Numerous examples on
Friends of the Mississippi River 38 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
this site abounded of trees that were completely surrounded by shrubs (red cedar,
Tartarian honeysuckle, buckthorn) (Photo 22). Sometimes the trees were dead, as in the
case of elms that contracted Dutch elm disease, but they are long -since survived by their
complement of surrounding shrubs. Slowly but surely, woody plants have started to
transform this once open bluff prairie to a closed brushy shrubland. Given enough time,
this transformation would be complete on the entire slope. To reverse this trend and
restore prairie on the bluff, it is imperative to 1) remove the larger woody brush and 2) to
re- introduce fire into the ecosystem of the bluff prairie. This will not be easy, given the
steepness of the slopes and the extent of woody brush encroachment, but it is necessary.
After the brush has been removed and several prescribed burns have been performed,
prairie should then start to make a comeback.
Another priority of this area is the protection of bur oaks from oak wilt and bur oak blight
diseases. (See the section entitled "Adjacent Landuse" for a fuller description of the oak
wilt disease and control options.) Bur oaks on the savanna ridgetop of the bluff prairie are
particularly significant to the landscape and are of high priority to protect Oak wilt
infection centers exist nearby, on the north - facing slope on the other side of the ridge from
the bluff prairie (OF -4). This area has shallow soil that is very close to bedrock, and
therefore it is not recommended to use vibratory plowing here. It is strongly
recommended to monitor for oak wilt every year, and to remove trees that are recently
dead or dying from the disease, since this greatly reduced the spore load in the vicinity.
Many times oak wilt will start in the reds and move to burs just because the concentration
of spores is so high that if a bur oak happens to get injured (in a storm, for example) its
likelihood of becoming infected is high. By using sanitation— removing and properly
disposing of infected branches and stems —the probability of overland spread of the
disease into nearby bur oaks is greatly reduced. Also reducing the wounding of nearby
oaks (for instance in nearby development and construction zones) greatly helps reduce
overland spread. If burs do contract the disease, probably the best direct control would be
chemical injections into individual high -value bur oaks trees. This is expensive, however,
and also needs to be done every two years to be effective.
OAK WOODLAND-BRUSH LAND (13.9 acres) (2.5 ac)
This cover type was encountered at three different units on the property, OW -1 (6.6 ac),
OW -2 (2.5 ac), and OW -3 (7.3). These units have one thing in common: they are dominated
by red and pin oaks, have a large component of aspen, and are desperately in need of fire,
since they are quite badly overgrown with brush.
Friends of the Mississippi River 39 Gatewoy North Open Space NRMP
OW -1 was located in the central portion of the property, between the pipeline and the
bedrock prairie. It was 6.6 acres in area and lies on flat topography in the north portion
and steeper, south - facing slope in the south porl
quite open, with only about 10 to 30% tree cover here (Photo 23). This makes sense, since
the 1947 aerials show that this was the site of one of the rectangular clearings (old fields)
(Figure 6). In the south part, on the steeper slopes and at the bases of these slopes, the
canopy was much more closed, with many medium -sized bur oaks and large red cedar
dominating the canopy (Photo 24). In the north part of the unit, the tree canopy consisted
of a mix of primarily young black cherry, basswood (multi-stem trees), boxelder, American
elm, eastern red cedar, and red oak. Grading to the north - facing slope (OW -4), a stand of
big- toothed aspen occurs. Shrubs cover about 40 to 80% of the north portion and about
20 -40% of the south portion of the unit. Shrubs consisted of smooth sumac, prickly ash,
buckthorn, black raspberry, red cedar, and grey dogwood. The ground layer varied from
20 to 60% in the northern portion to 10 -40% in the south of the unit, and consisted of
smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, Pennsylvania sedge, moss, reed canary grass for
graminoids, and Canada goldenrod, bergamot, thimbleweed for forbs. No native grasses
were found in this unit.
OW -2, located at the western end of the property, beyond the bedrock prairie, lies on a
west- facing slope that levels out at the bottom of the far west end of the property. This unit
was dominated and almost exclusively occupied by large, mature red oaks in the tree
canopy which had an approximately 60 -80% coverage. A stand of big- toothed aspen also
was present on the west - facing slope. The shrub layer and understory layer was quite
dense with buckthorn, and the ground layer was nearly absent. Oak leaves abounded on
the soil surface, so fire has an excellent chance of being used as a restoration tool here.
Friends of the Mississippi River 40 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Photo 23. OW -1, north portion. Note the rather
open character of the woodland and the lack of
mature trees.
OW -3 is located at the opposite end of the property, on the east - facing slope at the far
eastern side of the easement. This unit was
also on the site of a former clearing, as seen
in Figure 6 (Perhaps this was a large
timber harvest, since it would have been
too steep for a field.) Nevertheless, this
area was definitely quite degraded, with
much larger and much denser buckthorn
(Photo 25). The canopy dominant was red
oak. A large quaking aspen stand was
located at the west boundary of this unit, at
the flat ridge -top, which blends into the
FDs27 unit. The herbaceous ground layer
was virtually absent in this OW -3 unit, since
the buckthorn was so dense. High quantities
of large woody debris were present on the
forest floor, thus heavy fuels were much
greater here than in other parts of the
property, which will have impacts on potential future burning plans (Photo 26).
As in the oak forest, a lack of oak regeneration is a problem in this oak woodland cover
type. Without proper management, this woodland will likely succeed to a disturbed mesic
forest with no oak component, that will likely be dominated by buckthorn. The restoration
goal of this community should be Southern Dry -Mesic Oak Woodland (FDs37).
Approximately four acres of the higher,
flatter portion of what was formerly Mesic
Oak Forest between OW -3 and the trail and
blacktop road in mid - eastern portion of the
property is recommended to restore to
Southern Oak -Pine woodland (FDs27).
Present here was a stand of Jack Pine, and
the continuation of the large quaking aspen
stand, with scattered bur and red oaks.
Buckthorn was very dense throughout.
Three acres of what was formerly mesic oak
forest at the southern end of the easement,
and wrapping around the north side of the
Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Friends of the Mississippi River 41
newly constructed building, was an area that had numerous prairie openings and was
dominated by large, gnarly bur oak trees (Photo 27). It is recommended to restore this
area to Southern Mesic Savanna (UPs24). There were several prairie species in the
ground layer, including leadplant, thimbleweed, little bluestem, big bluestem, and several
sedges. Removing small to medium sized trees and expanding the prairie ground cover
into cleared gaps would be recommended for this portion.
MEDIUM -TALL GRASS, ALTERED NON - NATIVE DOMINATED GRASSLAND (2.0 acres)
This unit is located at the base of the slope near Hwy 61 at the far western end of the
property, and was re- designated primarily as Oak Woodland (FDs37, OW -2) with a small
portion as Bluff Prairie (UPs13c).
GRASSLAND ON PIPELINE RIGHT OF WAY (1.1 Acres)
This unit is designated as "grassland" (Photo 28) (Figure 12). The vegetation on this long,
smooth brome, prickly ash, and black raspberry, among others. The very south end of this
unit was disturbed and then repaired on the surface using erosion control blankets. It is
recommended to monitor this area for erosion and also for establishment of vegetation. It
is further recommended that native vegetation be seeded here. So if non - native seed was
used, it is recommended to re -do this area using native seed and erosion control blanket. It
is assumed that maintenance of this unit will be the responsibility of the pipeline company,
who will be responsible for re- seeding disturbed areas, etc.
11 to 25% IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (9.2 Acres)
Portions of the part located north and adjacent to the bluff prairie were considered 11 -25%
Impervious Surfaces, presumably because of nearby houses. This area is targeted to be oak
Friends of the Mississippi River 42 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
savanna (Sav -1), oak woodland (OW -2) and oak forest (OF -4) in this plan (Figure 12). See
those sections above for a description of these landcovers.
PAVEMENT WITH 91 to 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER (0.8 Acres)
A portion of the far eastern end of the property was occupied by impervious cover. It is
targeted to oak woodland (OW -3) in this plan (Figure 12).
Friends of the Mississippi River 43 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
9
0 0
0
o �
� M
z
0
z
m
v
U
0
O
m O1
0 L
LL
LL
v
3 �
x �
U R
d �
V
a E
«
LL
LL
`m
s
3
0
S N
T
0
E
m
r.+
I.M
h
W
U
f�
CL
V5
r.
d
CL
C
O
z
�a
3
a�
a�
a�
c
O
U
C
0.
r
N
r-I
L.
w
U
C
N
n.
O
0�
RESTORATION PROCESS
Undertaking a restoration project of this size is a significant task and assistance is available
to help landowners with the process. Friends of the Mississippi River and Washington
County will continue to work closely with the landowners, if desired, by helping to secure
funding and providing project management and oversight. Professional firms that can
conduct management tasks are listed in Appendix E.
Management recommendations were developed for each land cover area, with the overall goals
for the easement area focused on 1) protecting high quality wetlands, 2) restoring oak
woodland/forest, and 3) providing wildlife habitat. Overall management practices to achieve
those goals are:
• remove non - native, invasive, woody species;
• control non - native invasive herbaceous species, including, reed canary grass, hybrid
cattail, Canada thistle, common burdock, and smooth brome grass;
• restore ground layer and shrub layer on steep woodland/forest slopes;
• conduct periodic prescribed burning to maintain woodland vegetation and reduce
invasive shrubs and overabundant tree seedlings;
• monitor annually for potential erosion and sedimentation, as well as for non - native
invasive woody species;
• avoid any activities that will result in erosion or nutrient/chemical runoff to the wetlands
• institute a monitoring plan to track effectiveness of management and restoration
activities.
Restoration Goals
The primary objective for this site is to improve the composition of the plant communities
throughout the property to better reflect the diversity, composition and structure that
would have been present at the time of European settlement and to improve the ecological
functions that the historic native plant communities would have provided, including:
■ habitat for a diversity of wildlife species,
■ nutrient and water cycling,
■ carbon storage,
■ moderation of water -table levels,
■ erosion control,
■ filtration of nutrients, sediments and pollutants,
■ development and enrichment of soils,
■ local temperature moderation.
Though degraded by past uses, the existing plant cover retains a good variety of native
species and could be readily improved. A healthy and diverse plant community can provide
Friends of the Mississippi River 45 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
much greater wildlife value than a degraded one, and tends to be much more stable, and
less susceptible to disease, invasive species, and other concerns.
Target Plant Communities
The restoration sites on property will consist primarily of a mix of woodland plant communities
and native bluff prairie.
The restoration target communities for this property are listed in Table 3 and mapped in Figure
13.
Table 3. Restoration target plant communities for existing landcover.
w
�
'c
�
v
N
N
U
C
•N
Q
J
d
Dominant Soil Type(s)
Target Communit
OF
OF -1
4.8
Brodale flaggy loam 488E
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest MHs37
OF
OF -2
7.4
Waukegan silt loam 411C
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest MHs37
Brodale flaggy loam (488F) and Chetek
OF
OF -3
6.6
sandy loam 155
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest MHs37
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland
OF
OW -1
3.1
Waukegan silt loam 411 B
FDs37
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland
OF
OW -3
7.3
Brodale flaggy loam 488E
FDs37
OF
Sav -2
2.9
Waukegan silt loam 411
Southern Mesic Savanna UPs24
Gr-
Waukegan (411), Dorerton Rock
OF
Pie
1.1
Outcrop 1819E and Brodale 488E
Generic grassland
same
BI -Pr
BI -Pr
7.3
Dorerton Rock Outcrop 1819E
Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie UPs13c
OW-
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland
Br
OW -1
4.9
Waukegan silt loam 411 B
FDs37
11-
25%
Mahtomedi loamy sand (454D) and
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland
Imp
OW -2
2.5
Hubbard loamy sand 76
FDs37
11-
25%
Imp
OF -4
2.4
Dorerton Rock Outcrop 1819E
Southern D -Mesic Oak Forest MH07
11-
25%
Imp
Sav -1 1
4.3
Waukegan silt loam 411 B
Southern Mesic Savanna UPs24
Md -tl
Dorerton Rock Outcrop (1819F) and
Gr -Alt
BI -Pr
2
Hubbard 713
Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie UPs13c
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland
Pave
OW -3
1.1
Mahtomedi 1558
FDs37
Friends of the Mississippi River 46 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
As can be seen from Figure 12 and Table 3, the majority of landcover in the GNOS
easement property is Oak Forest. This oak forest was named "mesic subtype" by MLCCS
and is being called Southern Dry -Mesic Oak Forest in this plan, following convention set by
MN DNR (DNR, 2005) for native plant communities. Some of what was classified "Oak
Forest, Mesic Subtype" by MLCCS was determined to be overgrown oak woodland, by the
FMR ecologist, and therefore this plan is calling for it to be restored to Southern Dry -Mesic
Woodland ( FDs37) and to Southern Dry -Mesic Oak -Pine Woodland (FDs27). Note that the
Oak Woodland communities will be second highest in area occupied on the GNOS property,
following restoration (Figure 12). Also, some of the cover unit "11 -25% Impervious Cover
with Deciduous Trees" is being restored to both Oak Forest (MHs37) and Oak Woodland
(FDs37) (Table 3). The "Dry Prairie Bedrock Bluff Subtype" cover unit (Figure 11) is
being called bythis plan Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (UPs13c), and gains two acres along the
south border (adjacent to Hwy 61) that was formerly designated as "Medium -Tall Grass,
Altered Non - Native Dominated ", since it makes sense to manage this along with the larger
adjacent bluff prairie unit. Portions of cover types designated as "Oak Forest, Mesic
Subtype" and also "11 -25% Impervious Cover with Deciduous Trees" are being restored to
Southern Mesic Savanna (UPs24) (Figures 11 and 12) to reflect the existing conditions of
the site and the historical vegetation of the site. Lastly, the narrow, long strip of what was
part of cover type "Oak Forest, Mesic Subtype" that is currently a pipeline right of way, is
being re- classified as "Generic Grassland ", since this is not an oak forest but neither is it a
native plant community.
Although the plant communities on Figure 12 are shown as having distinct borders, in
actuality they would for the most part have rather fuzzy borders. One community
generally grades into another, with community structure being interwoven, with wavy
margins separating them — nature tends to have few straight lines. Management of, for
example an oak forest unit and an adjacent oak woodland unit, may sometimes mix
together, and that is fine. Also, if a unit does not respond to being restored to a specific
plant community, then it is reasonable and acceptable to adapt the plan to the situation at
hand, sort of going with what the site dictates. This also underscores the importance of
annual evaluations performed by ecologists or other natural resource professionals.
Monitoring, evaluating, and then re- evaluating and adapting and changing plans and
implementation strategies to fit specific circumstances and resulting conditions is key to
restoration success. This concept is called adaptive management, and is a strategy
commonly used by land managers and restorationists.
Restoration Process
The restoration of these communities will be broken into phases. Each phase will address
the restoration of each given target plant community. Phases will be spread out over a
number of years. Restoration will also be prioritized, with the most important resources or
vital areas taking precedence. On this site, the Bluff Prairie is the highest priority because
this plant community is vulnerable to extirpation in the state of Minnesota, and thus will be
given preference in this plan. The second priority is restoring the Mesic Savanna units,
since savanna is also a vulnerable plant community. The third priority is
protecting /restoring the higher quality areas of forest and /or woodland on the property
Friends of the Mississippi River 47 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
(for example, OF -1 and OF -2). The fourth priority is restoring lower quality areas of forest
and /or woodland (e.g., OW -1, OW -2). Last priority is managing the pipeline ROW
grassland, since this will be in a continual state of artificiality. Table 4 is a schedule of
proposed management activities and cost estimates, and lists each step in the process.
Site -Wide Invasive Woody Plant Removal /Control
The initial restoration goal will be the eradication of non - native woody species. This can be
done in phases, according to priority, with bluff prairie coming first, followed by Oak
Savanna, Oak Forest, and Oak Woodland. Restoration of each of the proposed plant
community types, following in subsequent phases, as listed, can proceed depending on
funding and scheduling. It would be nice to attain this goal all at once for the entire
property, a process that typically takes three to five years. However, more closely
integrating seeding, following removal, may be necessary, especially on the steep slopes
that constitute the greater part of this property. Part of the exotic woody control would be
prescribed burns, which will reduce seedlings of exotic species and will help to foster
native species.
Restoration Priorities
PRIORITY 1: Restore /Protect Bedrock Bluff Prairie
Woody Plant Removal
The Bluff Prairie is in desperate need of being burned. Burning would not be enough,
however, since so many trees and shrubs have invaded over 150 years of fire suppression.
Therefore, first almost all trees and shrubs (woody brush) should be removed, and then the
site should be burned. Only a few trees should be allowed to remain: a few bur oaks and a
few redcedars. There are a few very large cottonwoods at the top of the bluff that could be
removed —they are old and declining and may die soon, and don't appear to be
regenerating. Detailed woody species removal information is provided in Appendix D.
Primary species to remove are common buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, redcedar,
basswood, hackberry, with some Amur maple, and Siberian elm also. Cut stumps should be
treated with Glyphosate (via hand -held spray bottles because they are easy to handle on
steep slopes). This should be applied to stumps on a calm day during the growing season
when temperatures are above freezing but not above 85 degrees. If not treated, stumps will
sprout with multiple stems, thus creating a difficult situation to control, since even more
cutting and herbicide will be required on the multiple resprouts. Use of chemicals should
be done with extreme care on this site, especially on the bluff prairie, given the high
potential for groundwater contamination and the high diversity of native prairie plants. It
is recommended to use Glyphosate. Glyphosate binds to soil particles and is generally not
mobile, so it is a better choice than other herbicides that are more mobile.
Working on steep slopes presents a challenge on this property, especially on the talus
slopes of the bluff prairie. Hand cutting of all woody brush is recommended for these
steep, sensitive slopes. Operating equipment here would be very dangerous. Footing will
be treacherous so proceed with caution keeping safety the highest priority. Using trained
professionals (city staff or contractors) on the bluff prairie would be recommended.
Friends of the Mississippi River 48 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Volunteers can be utilized for areas that are not too steep. Costs for working on the steep
slopes will undoubtedly be higher than usual. Brush near the ridge top can be hauled up
top. Brush farther down the slope will be easier to haul down to the bottom. Brush pile
locations will need to be determined, considering access and proximity to the highway.
Burning of brush piles will probably not be an option close to the highway. Brush pile site
locations to consider may be 1) on the far west end of the slope, where it flattens out and 2)
the far eastern end of the slope near the building. Details will have to be worked out in the
field at the time of removal.
Shrub Control
In terms of shrubs, the stands of sumac should be suppressed by mechanical methods
((two or more coppices per growing season) (Appendix D)), but not eradicated. There is a
patch of American hazelnut on the slope which can be left alone. Otherwise, all of the other
shrubs should be removed. Prickly ash, a native shrub of open woodlands and savannas,
can be controlled in areas that it is overabundant in the bluff prairie. Cutting and treating
of stumps is recommended to control overabundant populations, but eradication is not
recommended. Burning will top -kill prickly ash, but will not kill the root.
Repeated burning will keep populations in check.
Grass Control, Burning and Seeding
Eliminating smooth brome on the steep bluff prairie slopes involves properly timed
activities. First attempts should be late season burns. Late season burns are beneficial
because they more completely deplete plants of energy reserves by destroying the biomass
of the topgrowth. Early season burns can only destroy what little topgrowth that has
formed at that early part of the growing season. Late season burns also are more damaging
to native forbs, so it is recommended to switch to early season burns in successive years,
once smooth brome has been controlled. Two consecutive years of late- season burns
should be adequate. Then switch to a regular burning cycle of 2 to 5 years. If late- season
burning alone proves to be unsuccessful, then spot treatments of herbicide can be
performed. Since native prairie remnants are patchy and their distribution is random on
the slope, care should be taken to reduce collateral damage to the native plants (Appendix
D).
Dry prairies do not require as frequent burning as do mesic ones, since tree and shrub
invasion is somewhat inhibited by dry and nutrient poor conditions of the soil (MN DNR,
2005). However, as can be seen from the dense vegetation of this site, they still do require
frequent enough fire to keep woody plants from invading. Two years of back -to -back Rx
burns are recommended for the bluff prairie, followed by burns every 3 to 5 years from
then on. Also, the bluff prairie could be divided into two or three burn units so that burning
could be rotated between units. The site should be evaluated after each burn to see how
well plants (and animals) recover.
Before deciding whether or not to seed, monitor and evaluate the bluff prairie after a
couple of burns to see if any native come into open gaps. Sometimes a latent seedbed can
be released following smooth brome control. If it turns out, after 2 years or so, that no
natives are filling in the gaps, then seeding will probably be required. Collect on site seed
Friends of the Mississippi River 49 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
first, to preserve the integrity of the remnant. Collecting seed in the summer and fall,
following a spring burn, is recommended since fecundity and fertility of plants from burned
areas improves. It may be best to collect seed after the first year and save it, and add it to
the second year's collection, to be broadcast following the second year burn. If not enough
seed is available from on site, then purchase seed of local genetic origin (local ecotype
origin) that is appropriate to the community. Origin within 100 miles is desirable. Use of
erosion control blanket may be needed on steep slopes.
PRIORITY 2: Restore Oak Savanna
Although oak savanna would have constituted a large portion of this site in pre - settlement
times, most of the site is too heavily wooded to restore to savanna. Approximately 7 acres
are being restored to oak savanna on this property, in two different units, one on the bluff
prairie ridge top (Sav -1) and the other along the south boundary (Sav -2) (Figure 12). The
ridge top savanna will be relatively easy to restore, since it already contains the proper
structure (scattered mature bur oaks and a grassland understory), and really only needs to
be burned and possibly seeded. The other savanna, "Savanna 2" will be more difficult, since
it requires much more tree and shrub (brush) removal. Brush removal can be
accomplished in a similar fashion as on the Bluff Prairie, in terms of treatment of stumps.
Large bur oaks should be left in this unit, but most of the other trees should be removed.
Woody debris should be gathered and stacked into burn piles, which can be located
scattered throughout the property. Protect trees from heat damage by locating piles in
forest openings at suitable distances from trees. Piles are best burned in winter when a
light snow cover exists (e.g. 3 -6 inches); otherwise fall is acceptable, too. Another option is
to cut the stems small and scatter them on the ground, but this is undesirable when stems
are thick. Stem - scattering would be suitable in woodland areas. It can save on exotic brush
removal costs, but can also impede access for future management if cut brush is dense and
regrowth occurs through the litter.
Since this site is fairly large, seed will most likely have to be purchased. Try collecting as
much as possible, but purchase of local ecotype seed is appropriate here. No erosion
control blanket will be necessary due to flatter terrain in this unit.
Burn at a rotation similar to the bluff prairie, about every 3 to 5 years. Savanna -1 unit may
be burned in conjunction with the bluff prairie for most years, but juxtaposing it against the
bluff prairie burn cycle is recommended for some of the burns.
Scenic Overlook or Council Ring
The City of Cottage Grove expressed a desire to install a Scenic Overlook or Council Ring on
the flat - topped ridge at the top of the bluff prairie. Design proposals were evaluated by
FMR ecologist, as well as a proposed location. Proposed designs looked appropriate for the
site, with some exceptions.
• We recommend not planting any turf or other plants in or around the ring.
• Keep the location of the ring in the area near the concrete rectangular structure
(Notable Feature #13, Figure 11).
Friends of the Mississippi River 50 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
• Use natural materials such as rock, stone, etc. so as to maintain organic unity with
the surrounding natural community
• Do not impact the roots of any nearby bur oaks. Stay back from critical root zone at
all times.
• Limit construction damage and soil compaction by working and hauling materials
during winter or late fall when surface soil is frozen.
• Only one structure is recommended, not an overlook and a council circle, since this
will take up too much of the valuable savanna area.
If a trail is installed on the ridge top, we recommend that it be terminated at the overlook,
and not extended beyond westward. This should discourage excess foot traffic across the
savanna areas (savanna will be in the process of being restored). Wood chips are an
appropriate material to use for trail construction in this sensitive area.
PRIORITY 3: RestoreJProtect Dry -Mesic Oak Forests and Restore Dry -Mesic Oak
Woodlands
For the most part, the Dry -Mesic Oak Forests are less disturbed than the Dry -Mesic Oak
Woodlands and actually should require less effort to restore. The Oak Forests have a less
dense layer of buckthorn to deal with, compared to the woodlands, and they should not
require as frequent burning. Light surface fires should burn Dry -Mesic Oak Forests on a
rotation of about once every 20 years. Comparatively, Dry -Mesic Oak Woodlands should be
burned on a rotation of about every 7 to 9 years. There was a significant accumulation of
heavy fuels in these communities at the time of the field visits in fall of 2011, especially in
the woodlands. The first couple of burns will be a longer, with hotter fires, until fuels get
reduced. It would be advisable to perform a couple of burns in close succession the first
couple of times /years, and then drop back to the regular rotation rate, to help consume the
abundant fuels.
Buckthorn Control
For buckthorn control in the forest units, the least damaging approach would be
mechanical cutting (using a shoulder- strapped brush cutter). Stems should be cut over a
period of two to three years to reduce the vigor of the shrubs. Buckthorn plants usually die
after repeated cutting that occurs at lease twice a year for two to three years in a row.
Evaluate the site after two years, and if this method is not working, then perhaps combine
it with a late fall foliar or a basal bark application of Glyphosate. The buckthorn plants of
the forest landcover units are generally small and, since the ground layer is not that
diverse, collateral damage from herbicide spray would most likely be low. Timing is
critical, however. Late fall (mid- October) treatments are best because most of the native
forest forbs and graminoids have gone dormant. If a one -time cutting is used as a control
method for buckthorn, then each little stump must be treated with herbicide, which is very
labor intensive. Basal bark treatments may also be used, but this requires large amounts of
herbicide. Basal bark treatments may be done in the winter. All methods, however, should
be subject to modification based on field assessments by an ecologist throughout the
restoration process.
Buckthorn is large and dense in the woodland units, and thus controlling it will require
cutting and stump treating with herbicide (Appendix D). Again, as in the Savanna units,
Friends of the Mississippi River 51 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
woody debris should be gathered and stacked into burn piles, which can be located
scattered throughout the property. Protect trees from heat damage by locating piles in
forest openings at suitable distances from trees. Piles are best burned in winter when a
light snow cover exists (e.g. 3 -6 inches); otherwise fall is acceptable, too. Another option is
to cut the stems small and scatter them on the ground, but this is undesirable when stems
are thick. Stem - scattering would be suitable in woodland areas. It can save on exotic brush
removal costs, but can also impede access for future management if cut brush is dense and
regrowth occurs through the litter.
Seeding and Planting
For restoration of the ground layer, seed will have to be purchased for the forests and
woodlands (Appendix B is a species list). Forest seed is notoriously slow to germinate, so
perhaps it would be best to plant plugs (small transplants) in plots to add diversity to the
forest. Because of high deer populations, it may be necessary to protect plantings with
fencing surrounding each plot. Seed tends to germinate more readily in woodlands, since
they are more open to light. Taking advantage of canopy gaps is recommended for seeding.
Planting of shrubs to add diversity is also recommended (Appendix B). Trees do not need
to be planted, although planting oaks may be necessary for regeneration of oaks in the
forest and woodlands. Oaks require light for growth, so planting in gaps is recommended.
Protecting each shrub or oak tree with a wire cage is recommended. Watering during dry
spells is also recommended the first year after planting, but logistics on watering in this
park will be tricky. It would be best to plant in spring to take advantage of early season soil
moisture. Remember to protect shrub plantings from fire for five years, and new seedings
for two to three years, lest they be killed before they become established.
Prescribed Burns —More Information
It is recommended to split the entire site up into burn units, for ease of operation and for
ecological reasons (impacts on insects and animals, for instance). It is important to leave
some areas unburned (refugia) to allow insect and animal populations to recover and
repopulate burned areas. Rotate the burning of units from year to year, and try not to burn
adjacent units in consecutive years. Prior to a prescribed burn, a burn plan must be
devised. The burn contractor can help with the burn plan. Permits must be obtained from
the DNR and local fire officials. Initially, burning would be rotated every one or two years,
so that each year a different burn unit would be burned. Long -term, burns should occur
every 5 -9 years in woodlands and 3 -5 years in prairies and savannas.
Prior to burning, burn breaks must be created to contain the fire. Burn breaks consist of a
mowed swath in grassland areas, typically at least 8 feet wide. In woodland areas, the
break line is created by clearing the leaf litter and any other debris to reach mineral soils.
Locating breaks on the periphery of the easement is a logical place for them. Also utilizing
the trail system and edges of forests would be useful and easier than making them from
scratch. The burn contractor can also help with the placement and installation of burn
breaks. Allowing fire to run into adjacent different land covers is a good strategy. For
example, breaklines in a prairie unit that is adjacent to woodland should be placed a short
Friends of the Mississippi River 52 Gateway Nortli Open Space NRMP
distance into the woodland, where feasible. This makes for a more natural looking and
functioning landscape and helps to prevent the woodland from encroaching into the
prairie.
Smoke management is the main concern for burning on this property, since there are a
number of nearby residences, buildings, and roads.
Long -Term Monitoring and Maintenance
Monitoring is very important to restoration success. Monitoring, evaluation and
assessment should be done at least annually by an ecologist or a restoration professional.
More frequent monitoring will be needed in the initial phases of restoration to evaluate the
success of the methodology and to inform future strategies. Adapting to issues or factors
observed during monitoring and assessment is vital to the restoration process.
Once the primary restoration tasks are completed, the restoration process will convert to a
monitoring and adaptive management phase. Long -term maintenance for the woodland
areas will consist of burning every 5 to 9 years and monitoring every year and managing
for exotic species. Dry -Mesic Oak Forests (those that are very dense and occur on moist
soils and north to east - facing slopes) and Lowland Hardwood Forests will require burning
once every 20 years. For Prairies, burning should occur every 3 to 5 years.
Restored areas must be regularly monitored to identify ecological issues, such as erosion
and sedimentation, invasive species, and disease. Monitoring is also important for
detecting human - related issues such as illegal activities (hunting, ATV use, tree harvesting,
etc.) Early detection of concerns enables quick responses to address them before they
become significant problems.
Monitoring animal as well as plant communities is also helpful for evaluating results of the
restoration. A comparison of bird populations before and after restoration, for example,
would be a valuable tool for quantifying positive impacts on the land.
RESTORATION SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATES
An approximation of restoration /management tasks, priorities, and costs are provided in
Table 4, below. Project cost estimates are not based on actual contractor bids, but on
typical costs for similar projects. Actual project costs could be significantly higher or lower,
depending on multiple factors. Costs could potentially be decreased by, for example,
reducing the diversity of prairie seed costs, contracting for the entire project with one
contractor, using volunteers or STS (Sentence to Serve) crew for portions of the labor such
as hauling brush. Some activities may be carried out by the landowner if they wish, and
have the time and equipment to do so. Project tasks and costs may also change over time,
as more information is learned about the property and as the site conditions change.
Friends of the Mississippi River 53 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
The most important short -term issue to address is exotic woody species control at all the
units. Ideally, this should be addressed site -wide prior to any other restoration activities to
eliminate seed sources of these exotic species. However, if budget concerns preclude this,
woody brush removal may be phased and accomplished over several years time.
Table 4. GNOS Restoration Schedule and Cost Estimates
These tables are rough schedules and approximate costs for restoration and management tasks for
the GNOS property. Both the project tasks and costs are likely to change as the project progresses -
these tables should be used only as rough guides. Tasks were phased, with 1 being the highest
nrinrity. Work units corresnond with those shown in Fieure 12.
Friends of the Mississippi River 54 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
TActivity
Cost/
Cost
Year
Season
Units
Acres
Ac
Est.
PHASE 1. RESTORE AND PROTECT BLUFF PRAIRIE AND ADJACENT UNITS
BI -Pr, Sav -
1, OF -4,
0
June
OW -2
Breeding bird survey before restoration occurs.
15.3
1,200
Cut and treat exotic woody brush plants and
fall, winter,
other undesirable native woody brush on steep
7
3,000
21,600
early
slopes of bluff prairie. Haul brush to piles and
1
spring
BI -Pr
either remove or burn in winter.
fall, winter,
Cut and treat large exotic woody brush plants
early
BI -Pr, Sav-
and other undesirable native woody brush on
11.5
1,500
17,250
1
spring
1
ridge-top Oak Savanna -1 of bluff prairie.
Cut and treat large exotic woody brush plants
fall, winter,
and other undesirable native woody brush
8.1
1,500
12,150
early
Sav -1, OF-
throughout remaining savanna -1, oak forest -4,
1
spring
4, OW -2
and oak woodland -2.
Conduct prescribed burn on bluff prairie slopes
BI -Pr, Sav-
and ridge -top (oak savanna -1), and if possible
15.3
200
3,060
1, OF -4,
into nearby oak savanna -1 unit, oak forest -4
1
late spring
OW -2
unit, and oak woodland -2 unit.
BI -Pr, Sav -
1, OF -4,
15.3
100
1,530
1
fall
OW -2
Treat exotic res routs.
Monitor for bur oaks for Oak Wilt disease (July -
Jul -Aug
BI -Pr, Sav-
Aug) and for Bur Oak Blight (BOB) (July -Aug for
15.3
1,000
and
1, OF-4,
leaf necrosis and winter for marcescent leaves
1
Winter
OW -2
those that do not drop).
BI -Pr, Sav -
1, OF -4,
15.3
1,050
1
An
OW -2
Annual Ecological evaluation and assessment.
Seed parts of savanna, woodland, and forest
Sav -1, OF-
with native cover crop and native seed mix
8.1
600
4,860
1
June
4, OW -2
following burn.
Collect seed from native prairie remnants on
bluff prairie. Save this seed and combine with
7.2
900
Summer,
Year 2 seed collection to be broadcast following
1
Fall
BI -Pr
second burn.
BI -Pr, Sav -
1, OF -4,
15.3
1,200
1
June
OW -2
Breedin bird survey, after restoration
Friends of the Mississippi River 54 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Friends of the Mississippi River 55 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Conduct second prescribed burn on bluff prairie
BI -Pr, Sav-
slopes and ridge -top (oak savanna -1), and if
15.3
200
3,060
1, OF -4,
possible into nearby oak savanna -1 unit, oak
2
late spring
OW -2
forest -4 unit, and oak woodland -2 unit.
BI -Pr, Sav -
1, OF -4,
15.3
300
2
June
OW -2
Re- evaluate after burn.
If necessary, apply grass- herbicide to non-
native grasses (smooth brome, Kentucky
bluegrass, reed canary grass) on bluff prairie
15.3
100
1,530
fall (1st or
BI -Pr, Sav-
slopes, ridge -top (oak savanna -1), and
2nd wk of
1, OF -4,
throughout open units to be restored to oak
2
October
OW -2
savanna.
Purchase native seed and broadcast the seed
Sav -1, OF-
into parts of savanna, woodland, and forest with
8.1
600
4,860
2
June
4, OW -2
native cover crop following burn.
Broadcast seed onto bluff prairie following
second burn. Use seed that was collected from
7.2
600
the bluff prairie in years 1 and 2. Do not use
2
June
BI -Pr
purchased seed.
Subtotal 70,990
PHASE 2. RESTORE AND PROTECT REMAINING OAK SAVANNA and DRY -MESIC OAK FORESTS
Cut and treat exotic woody brush plants and
other undesirable native woody brush
fall, winter,
throughout remaining savanna (oak savanna -2).
2.
1,500
4,350
early
Cut and treat stumps. Haul brush to piles and
2
spring
Sav -2
burn in winter.
Cut and treat brush plants and other
undesirable native woody brush throughout
remaining oak forest units (OF -1, OF -2, OF -3).
18.8
1,500
28,200
June -July
Brush cut whips in June -July and again in Sep -
And
OF -1, OF-
Nov. Allow to resprout. If necessary, foliar or
2
Sept-Oct
2, OF -3
basal bark treat with Glyphosate in Sept/Oct.
In oak savanna, seed with native cover crop
2,9
1,000
2,900
3
May-June
Sav -2
seed inspring.
Conduct prescribed burn on oak savanna -2 unit,
June or
Sav -2, OF-
and into nearby oak forest -1 and oak forest -2
15.1
200
3,020
3
Oct -Nov
1, OF -2
units.
Sav -2, OF-
15.1
300
3
1, OF -2
Evaluate after the burn.
Spring or
Sav -2, OF-
Seed with diverse local ecotype seed mixes, if
15.1
1,000
15,100
3
Fall
1, OF -2 I
necessary. Plant shrubs at a low density.
Summer
Sav -2, OF-
Treat exotic resprouts (brush cut whips in
15.1
200
3,020
3
and Fall
1, OF -2
summer and fall
Monitor for bur oaks for Oak Wilt disease (July -
Jul -Aug
Aug) and for Bur Oak Blight (BOB) (July -Aug for
15.1
1,000
and
Sav -2, OF-
leaf necrosis and winter for marcescent leaves
2
Winter
1, OF -2
those that do not drop).
2
1
All
Annual ecological evaluation and assessment
54
1,030
Subtotal 62,920
PHASE 3. RESTORE DRY -MESIC OAK WOODLANDS
Friends of the Mississippi River 55 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Friends of the Mississippi River 56 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
OW -1,
OW-3,
14.5
1,200
1 & 2
June
OPW -1
Breeding bird survey before restoration occurs.
Control large exotic woody brush plants and
fall, winter,
OW -1,
other undesirable native woody brush
14.5
1,500
21,750
early
OW -3,
throughout oak woodlands. Cut and treat
3
spring
OPW -1
stumps. Haul brush to piles and burn in winter.
OW -1,
OW -3,
14.5
600
8,700
4
May-June
OPW -1
Seed with native cover crop seed inspring.
OW -1,
Summer,
OW -3,
14.5
100
1,450
4
fall
0PW -1
Treat exotic res routs
OW -1,
OW -3,
Conduct prescribed burn on oak woodland
14.5
200
2,900
4
Oct -Nov
OPW -1
units, and into nearby oak forest -3 unit.
OW -1,
OW -3,
14.5
300
5
Spring
OPW -1
Evaluate after the burn.
OW -1,
fall or
OW -3,
Seed with a diverse mix of woodland graminoids
14.5
1,200
17,400
5
spring
OPW -1
and (orbs.
OW -1,
Conduct a second prescribed burn on oak
spring or
OW -3,
woodland units. Do not allow fire to run into
14.5
200
2900
5
fall
OPW -1
nearby Oak Forest -3 unit.
OW -1,
OW -3,
14.5
300
5
OPW -1
Evaluate after the burn.
OW -1,
If necessary, seed again with a diverse mix of
spring or
OW -3, l i
woodland graminoids and (orbs. Plant shrubs at
14.5
1000
14,500
5 or 6
fall
OPWA 1 1
a low density. Plant herbaceous plugs in plots
Monitor for bur oaks for Oak Wilt disease (July -
Jul -Aug
OW -1,
Aug) and for Bur Oak Blight (BOB) (July -Aug for
14.5
1,000
and
OW -3,
leaf necrosis and winter for marcescent leaves
3
Winter
OPW -1
those ot dro
3
Al l
�thatdo
Annuaal evaluation and assessment.
54
1,030
Subtotal 73,430
TOTAL 207,340
Friends of the Mississippi River 56 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Long -Term Management
Once initial restoration tasks are completed, then long -term management ensues. Long-
term management includes tasks that are required to be done periodically to maintain the
plant community. Table 5 lists these tasks with associated cost estimates.
Tahle 5. GNOS i.onu -Term Management Schedule and Cost Estimates
Friends of the Mississippi River 57 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Cost/
Cost
Season
Units
Activity
Acres
Ac
Est.
Spring or fall
BI -Pr
Burn the Bluff Prairie eve 2 -5 years.
7 . 2
300
2160
Spring or fall
Sav -1, Sav -2
Burn the Savanna units eve 2 -5 years.
7 . 2
200
1440
Burn the oak woodland units every 7 -9 years.
Fall (spring
OW -1, OW -2, OW-
Divide into burn units and rotate burn cycles to
13.3
200
2660
sometimes )
3, OPWA
maintain heterogeneity.
Monitor for bur oaks for Oak Wilt disease (July -
Aug) and for Bur Oak Blight (BOB) (July -Aug for
54
1000
July -Aug and
leaf necrosis and winter for marcescent leaves
Winter
All
those that do not drop).
fall, summer,
54
1030
spring
All
Evaluation and assessment by ecologist
BI -Pr, Sav -1, OF-4,
OW -2, OW -1, OW-
Breeding bird surveys second year after
29
1200
June
3, OPWA
restoration.
$9,490 or more
Friends of the Mississippi River 57 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
WORKPLAN
The following tasks and budget are based on known costs and project needs at the time of
the restoration agreement. All parties, prior to implementation, will agree upon additional
future tasks. Work units are shown on Map in Figure 12.
Friends of the Mississippi River 58 Gateway Nortli Open Space NRMP
o
0
W
Q
w
°rn>
t
Yr
Activity
Q
U
�?
V o t�9
O
U
U
RESTORE BLUFF PRAIRIE AND ADJACENT UNITS
Control large woody exotic brush and treat
fall,
resprouts on Bluff Prairie and surrounding
1
winter
units.
26.8
52,600
fall,
Control exotic grassy vegetation on bluff
1,2
spring
rairie and surrounding units.
15.3
1,600
late
Conduct prescribed burn on Bluff Prairie
1
spring
and surrounding units.
3,000
Seed parts of savanna, forest, and
2
June
woodland adjacent to Bluff Prairie
7,000
late
Second burn on bluff prairie and into
2
spring
nearby units
15.3
3,100
Summer&
Winter
Monitor units for oak tree disease
15.3
1000
1,2
Evaluation and assessment
26.8
2,600
70,900
RESTORE REMAINING OAK SAVANNA AND DRY -MESIC OAK FORESTS
fall,
Control large woody exotic brush and treat
1
2
winter
resp routs on Savanna -2
2.9
4,400
June-
Control large woody exotic brush and treat
July;
resprouts throughout remaining forest units
2
Sept-Oct
OF -1, OF -2, and OF-3).
18.8
28,200
May -
June;
Spring,
Seed and burn savanna and seed again.
3
Fall
Plant Shrubs at low density.
15.1
22,000
Summer&
Winter
Monitor units for oak tree disease
18.8
1000
2,3
Evaluate units.
18.8
2,000
58,600
RESTORE DRY -MESIC OAK WOODLANDS
fall,
Control exotic brush and other undesirable
winter,
native brush throughout woodlands. Treat
3,4
summer
exotic resprouts.
14.5
23,300
4 &
spring,
5
fall
Seed, burn, and seed again.
14.5
29,000
Late
Second burn, and seed again if necessary.
5
spring
Plant shrubs at low density.
17,400
Summer&
3 1
Winter
Monitor and assess all units.
4,600
Friends of the Mississippi River 58 Gateway Nortli Open Space NRMP
Breeding bird survey in all units, both two
0, 1, years before and two years after
3 June restoration. 3,600
77,900
Long -term mana ement 9,400`
* This figure is a minimum. More will likely be necessary.
Friends of the Mississippi River 59 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Information Sources
Anderson, Pam. 2008. Lakes Program, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd
N, St Paul, MN 55155, 651 - 757 -2190, pam.anderson @pca.state.mn.us .Personal
Communication regarding Marcott Lakes water quality.
. 2005. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf
Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey,
and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN.
Foth, Henry D (Michigan State University). 1990 (8th Edition). Fundamentals of Soil Science.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
Frelich, Lee E., and Andrew Holdsworth. 2002. Exotic Earthworms in Minnesota Hardwood
Forests: an investigation ofearthworm distribution, understory plant communities, and forestfloor
dynamics in northern hardwood forests. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota,
1530 Cleveland Ave. N., Saint Paul, MN 55108
Marschner, F.J., 1974. The Original Vegetation of Minnesota. Map compiled from U.S. General
Land Office survey notes. U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Natural communities and rare species of
Dakota County. Minnesota County Biological Survey Map Series No. 1.
.2001. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System. MNDNR St. Paul, MN.
McComas, Steve. 2003. Lake and Pond Management Guidebook, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group, New York, New York.
Meyer, Gary N., R. W. Baker, C. J. Patterson. 1990. Surficial Geology in: Geologic Atlas
Washington County, Minnesota. University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Mossler, J.H. 1990. Bedrock Geology in: Geologic Atlas Dakota County, Minnesota. University of
Minnesota, St. Paul.
Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey of Dalcota County Minnesota. United States Department
of Agriculture.
Swanson, Lynn and Gary Meyer, eds.1990. Geologic Atlas Washington County, Minnesota.
Minnesota Geologic Survey. University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
. 2006. Tomorrow's Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife,
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. St Paul Baldwin Plains:
http: / /files.dnr.state.mn.us/ assistance /nrplanning/bigpicture /cwcs /profiles /st paul_baldwin_plains
Friends of the Mississippi River 1 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
.pdf
Websites:
Exotic species control methods: http: / /dnr.wi.gov /invasives /index.htm
Great Britain Forestry Commission: http:// www .forestry.gov.uk /fr /INFD- 678DWY
MN Natural Resources (DNR): http// www .dnr.state.mn.us /nr /index.htmi
Natural history of MN, bibliography (DNR):
http : / /www.dnr. state .mn.us / snas /naturalhistory_resources.htm l
Earthworm website: http'/ /www nrri.umn.edu /worms/
Forest Ecology:
http:/ /cffe.cfans.umn.edu /
Bur Oak Blight
http: / /www myminnesotawoods umn edu/ 2010 /09/ bur - oak - blight- bob -in- minnesota/
Oak Wilt
http/ /www dnr.state.mn.us /treecare /forest health /oakwilt /index.html
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
APPENDIX B Plant Species for Restoration at GNOS Property
Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (UPs13c)
Genus I Species I Common Name
Shrubs
Rosa cmx Smooth wild rose
Amornha canescens Lead -plant
Forbs
Long- headed
Lysimachia
ciliata
Fringed loosestrif
Anemone
cylindrica
thimbleweed
Mirabilis
hirsuta
Hairy four - o'clock
Antennaria
spp.
Pussytoes _
Monarda
fistulosa
Wild bergamot
Aquilegia
canadensis
Columbine
Common evening
Asclepias
verticillata
Whorled milkweed
Oenothera
biennis
primrose
Asclepias
tuberosa
Butterfly -weed
Cleland's evening
Asclepias
viridiflora
Green milkweed
Oenothera
clelandii
primrose
Asclepias
syriaca
Common milkweed
Oxalis
violacea
Violet wood-sorrel
Aster
sericeus
Silky aster
Pediomelum
esculentum
Prairie - turnip
Oolentan-
Pediomelum
argophyllum
Silvery scurf-pea
Aster
giensis
Sky -blue aster
Large- flowered
Aster
ericoides
Heath aster
Penstemon
grandiflorus
beard - tongue
Aster
laevis
Smooth aster
Physalis
virginiana
Ground -cherry
Crassi-
Potentilla
arguta
Tall cinquefoil
Astragalus
carpus
Buffalo -bean
Pycnan-
Virginia mountain-
Toothed evening
themum
virginianum
_mint
Calylophus
serrulata
primrose
Scutellaria
leonardi
Leonard's skullca
Campanula
rotundifolia
Harebell
Senecio
plattensis
Prairie ragwort
Coreopsis
palmata
Stiff tickseed
Silene
antirrhina
_Sleepy catchfly
Dalea
purpurea
Purple prairie - clover
Field blue -eyed
Da /ea
candida
White prairie - clover
Sisyrinchium_
campestre
grass
carolini-
Solidago
nemoralis
Gray goldenrod
Delphinium
anum
Prairie larkspur
Solidago
rigida
Stiff goldenrod _
Desmodium
illinoense
Illinois tick - trefoil
Solidago
speciosa
Showy goldenrod
Euphorbia
corollata
Flowering spurge
Tradescantia
occidentalis
Western spiderwo t
Obtuse-
Prairie bird -foot
Gnaphalium
folium
Sweet everlasting
Viola
pedatifida
violet
Helianthem
Viola
pedata
Bird -foot violet
um
bicknellii
Hoary frostweed _'
Heart- leaved
Helianthus
pauciflorus
Stiff sunflower
Zizia
aptera
alexanders
Heuchera
richardsonii
Alum -root
Common St. John's -
Hypericum
perforatum
wort
eupato-
Kuhnia
roides
False boneset
Round- headed bush
Lespedeza
capitata
clover
Liatris
aspera
Rough blazing star
Liatris
punctata
Dotted blazing star
Liatris
cylindracea
Cylindric blazing sta
Linum
sulcatum
Grooved yellow flax
Lobelia
spicata
Rough- spiked Lobeli
Friends of the Mississippi River 1 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (UPs13c)— cont'd.
Grasses,
Rushes and
Andropogon
gerardii
Big bluestem
Bouteloua
curtipendula
Side -oats grama
Bouteloua
hirsuta
Hairy grama
Calamovilfa
longifolia
Sand reed -grass
Carex
pensylvanica
Sunshine sedge
Cyperus
schweinitzu
Schweinitz' cyperus
Cyperus
lupulinus
Hop -like cyperus
Elymus
wiegandii
Canada wild rye
Eragrostis
spectabilis
Purple lovegrass
Muhlenbergia
cuspidata
Plains muhly
Few- flowered panic
Panicum
oligosanthes
grass
Panicum
wilcoxianum
Wilcox's panic grass
Panicum
perlongum
Long- leaved panic gras
Linnear- leaved panic
Panicum
linearifolium
grass
Panicum
leibergii
Leiberg'spanic grass
Schizachyrium
scoparium
Little bluestem
Sorghastrum
nutans
Indian grass
Sporobolus
heterolepis
Prairie dropseed
Sporobolus
asper
Rough dropseed
Stipa
spartea
Porcupine -grass
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Southern D
-Mesic Oak Forest (MH07
Forbs
Forbs(cont'd)
Anemone
quinquefolia
Wood- anemone
Pyrola
elliptica
Common pyrola
Anemone
virginiana
Tall thimbleweed
Pyrola
secunda
One -sided pyrola
androsaemifo
Ranunculus
abortivus
Kidney-leafbutterct
p
Apocynum
lium
Spreading dogbane
Ranunculus
recurvatus
Hooked crowfoot
Aquilegia
canadensis
Columbine
Rubus
pubescens
Dwarf raspberry
Aralia
nudicaulis
Wild sarsaparilla
Sanguinaria
canadensis
Bloodroot
Aralia
racemosa
American spikenard
Gregarious black
Side- flowering
Sanicula
gregaria
snakeroot
Arenaria
laterillora
sandwort
Maryland black
Arisaema
triphyllum
Jack -in- the - pulpit
Sanicula
mardandica
snakeroot
Asclepius
exaltata
Poke milkweed
Smilax
lasionuera
Carrion -flower
Aster
ciliolatus
Lindley'saster
Solidago
flexicaulis
Zig-zag goldenrod
Aster
laterii torus
Side- flowering aster
Solidago
hispida_
Hairy goldenrod
Aster
macrophyllus
Large - leaved aster
Solidago
uliginosa
Boggoldenrod
Oolentan-
Streptopus
lanceolatus
Rosy twisted -stalk
Aster
giensis
Sky -blue aster
Thalictrum
dasycarpum
Tall meadow -rue
Aster
sagittifalius
Tail- leaved aster
Thalictrum
dioicum
Early meadow -rue
Caulophyllum
thalictroides
Blue cohosh
Thalictrum
thalictroides
Rue - anemone
Canada enchanter's
Trientalis
borealis
Starflower
Circaea
lutetiana
nightshade
Clintonia
borealis
Bluebead lily
Trillium -
cernuum
Nodding trillium
Large - flowered
Cryptotaenia
canadensis
Honewort
Trillium
grandiflorum
trillium
Pointed - leaved
Uvularia
grandiflora
Yellow bellwort
Desmodium
glutinosum
tick - trefoil
Dioscorea
villosa
Wild yam
Uvularia
sessilifolia
Pale bellwort
Fragaria
vesca
Wood strawberry
Veroni-
castrum
virginicum
Culver's root
Fragaria
virginiana
Common strawberry
Violet (multiple
Galium
aparine
Cleavers
Viola
species
species)
Galium
boreale
Northern bedstraw
Zizia
aurea
Golden alexanders
Galium
concinnum
Elegant bedstraw
Grasses, Rushes and
Three - flowered
Sedges
Galium
triflorum
bedstraw
Brachy-
Geranium
inoculation
Wild geranium
ytrum
el
erection
Bearded shorthusk
Geum
canadense
White avens
Carex
blanda
Charmingsedge
Geum
trii lorum
Prairie smoke
Carex
deweyana
Dewey's sedge
Helianthus
hirsutus
Woodland sunflower
Carex
gracillima
Graceful sedge
Helianthus
strumosus
Rough -leaf sunflower
Carex
peckii
Peck's sedge
Hepatica
americana
Round -lobed hepatica
Carex
pedunculata
Long - stalked sedge
Heuchera
richardsonii
Alum -root
Carex
pensylvanica
Pennsylvania sedge
Lathyrus
venosus
Veiny pea
Carex
tenera
Marsh -straw sedge
Maianthemum
canadense
Canada mayflower
Carex
radiata
Stellate sedge
Racemose false
Elymus
hystrix
Bottlebrush grass
Maianthemum
racemosum
Solomon's -seal
Festuca
subverticillata
Nodding fescue
Starry false
Oryzopsis
asperifolia
Moutain rice -grass
Maianthemum
stellatum
Solomon's -seal
Mitchella
repens
Partridge -berry
Schizachne
purpurascens
False melic grass
Ferns and Fern Allies
Osmorhiza claytonii Clayton's sweet cicely
Osmorhiza
longistylis
Anise -root
Athyrium
filix femina
Lady -fern
Phryma
leptostachya
Lopseed
Dryopteris
intermedia
Fancy wood fern
Clammy ground-
Equisetum
pratense
Meadow horsetail
Physalis
heterophylla
cherry _
Matteuccia
struthiopteris
Ostrich -fern
Polygonatum
pubescens
Hairy Solomon's -seal
Osmunda
claytoniana
Interrupted fern
Polygonatum
biflorum
Giant Solomon's -seal
Pteridium
a uilinum
Bracken
Friends of the Mississippi River 3 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Southern Dry -Mesic Uak sorest (MHSi /) —coma
Canopy Trees &
understory trees
Acer
negundo
Box elder
Betula
papyrifera
Paper -birch
Carya
cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
Celtis
occidentalis
Hackberry
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
Green ash
ostrya
virginiana
Ironwood
Populus
grandidentata
Big- toothed aspen
Populus
tremuloides
Quaking aspen
Prunus
serotina
Black cherry
Quercus
alba
White oak
Quercus
ellipsoidalis
Northern pin oak
Quercus
macrocarpa
Bur oak
Querous
rubra
Northern red oak
TiGa
americana
Basswood
U/mus
americana
American elm
Ulmus
rubra
red elm
Shrubs
Amelanchier
interior
Juneberry
Amelanchier
laevis
Smooth juneberry
Comus
altemifolia
Pagoda dogwood
Comus
rugosa
Round- leaved dogwood
Comus
racemosa
Gray dogwood
Corylus
amedcana
American hazelnut
Cory/us
comuta
Beaked hazelnut
Crataegus
cmx
Hawthorn
Diervilla
lonicera
Bush honeysuckle
Ilex
verticillata
Winterberry
Lonicera
dioica
Wild Honeysuckle
Prunus
virginiana
Chokecherry
Ribes
cynosbati
Prickly gooseberry
Ribes
missouriense
Missouri gooseberry
Rosa
arkansana
Prairie rose
Rosa
blanda
Smooth wild rose
Rubus
occidentalis
Black raspberry
Rubus
idaeus
Red raspberry
Sambucus
racemosa
Red- berried Elder
Symphoricarpos
alba
Snowberry
Viburnum
lentago
Nannyberry
Viburnum
rafinesquianum
Downy arrow -wood
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland
Scientific name
Common name
Forbs
Nodding fescue
Amphicarpaea bracteata
hog - peanut
Antenaria slop.
pussytoes
Anemone americana
round -lobed hepatica
Anemone quinquefolia
Wood anemone
Apocynum androsaemifolium
Spreading dogbane
Aquilegia Canadensis
columbine
Aralia nudicaulis
wild sarsaparilla
Aster cordifolius
heart- leaved aster
Aster macrophyllus
Large - leaved aster
Astersagittifolius
Tail- leaved aster
Athynum filix- femina
lady fern
Campanula rotundifolia
harebell
Carex pensylvanica
Pennsylvania sedge
Circaea lutetiana
enchanters nightshade
Desmodium glutinosum
pointed- leaved tick - trefoil
Eupatorium fugosum
white snakeroot
Euphorbia corollata
flowering spurge
Fragada virginiana
wild strawberry
Galium boreale
northern bedstraw
Galium trillorum
three- flowered bedstraw
Geranium maculatum
wild geranium
Geum canadense
white avens
Helianthus strumosus
woodland sunflower
Maianthemum canadense
Canada mayflower
Osmorhiza claytonii
sweet cicely
Osmunda claytoniana
Interrupted fern
Ptendium aquilinum
Bracken fern
Phryma leptostachya
lopseed
Polygonatum billorum
Giant Solomon's seal
Pyrola elliptica
Elliptic shinleaf
Sanicula gregari
gregarious black snakeroot
Sanicula marilandica
Maryland black snakeroot
Smilacina racemosa
false Solomon's seal
Solidago ulmifolia
elm- leaved goldenrod
Thalictrum dioicum
Early meadow rue
Trientalis borealis
Starflower
Uvularia grandiflora
Large flowered bellwort
Uvularia sessilifolia
Pale bellwort
Grasses and Sedges
Carexpensylvanica
Pennsylvania sedge
Oryzopsis asperifolia
Mountain rice grass
Festuca subverticillata
Nodding fescue
Elymus hystrix
Bottlebrush grass
Shrubs
Amelanchierspp.
Juneberries
Comus altemifolia
Pagoda dogwood
Comus racemosa
Gray dogwood
Comus rugosa
Round - leaved dogwood
Corylus americana
American hazelnut
Corylus comuta
Beaked hazelnut
Diervilla Ionicer
Bush honeysuckle
Prunus virginiana
Chokecherry
Prunus pennsylvanica
pin cherry
Ribes cynosbati
Prickly gooseberry
Sambucus racemosa
Red berried elder
Symphoricarpos albus oroccidentalis
Snowberry/wolfberry
Viburnum Ientago
Nannyberry
Viburnum rafenesquianum
Downy arrowwood
Xanthoxylum americanum
Prickly ash
Trees
Betula papyrifera
Paper birch
Carya cordiformes
Bitternut hickory
Celtis occidentalis
Hackberry
Ostrya virginiana
Ironwood
Prunus, serotina
Black cherry
Quercus alba
White oak
Quercus ellipsoldalis
Northern pin oak
Quercus macrocarpa
Bur oak
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
Friends of the Mississippi River 5 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Southern Mesic Savanna
Genus
Species
Commo Name
Forbs (cont'd)
virginiana
Virginia thimblewei
Trees
species
Pussytoes
Fragaria
virginiana
Common strawberry
Quercus
macrocarpa
Bur oak
Galium
boreale
Northern bedstraw
Shrubs
frigida
Prairie sagewort
Gentiana x
billingtonii
Closed gentian
Amorpha
canescens
Lead - plant
Geum
trii forum
Prairie smoke
Prunus
virginiana
Chokecherry
Helianthus
maximiliani _
Maximilian's sunflower
Rosa
arkansano
Prairie rose
Helianthus
pauciflorus
Stiffsunflower
Salix
humilis
Prairie willow
Heliopsis
helianthoides
Ox -eye
Symphori-
umbellate
Bastard toad -flax
Heterotheca
villosa
Prairie golden aster
carpos
abla
Snowberry
Heuchera
richardsonii
Alum -root
Grasses, Rushes
and Sedges
Canadian tick - trefoi
Lathyrus
venosus
Veiny pea
Andropogon
graminifolia
Big bluestem
Round - headed
Bromus
,_gerardii
kalmii
Kalm's brome
Lespedeza
capitata
bush- clover
Carex
bicknelhi
Bicknell's sedge
Liatris _
aspera
Rough blazing star
Northern plains
Carex
meadii
Mead's sedge
Liatris
ligulistylis
blazing star
Carex
muhlenbergii
Muhlenberg's sedge
Liatris
pycnostachya
Gayfeather
Elymus
canadensis
Canada wild rye
Philadel-
Long- leaved
Lilium
phicum
Wood lily
Dicanthelium
perlongum
panic grass
Lobelia
spicata
Rough- spiked Lobelia
Ponicum
virgatum
Switchgrass
Maian-
Schizachyrium
scoparium
Little bluestem
themum
racemosum
False Solomon's -seal
Sorghastrum
nutans
Indian grass
Maian-
Starry false
Sporobolus
heterolepis
Prairie dropseed
themum
stellotum
Solomon's -seal
Stipa
spartea
Porcupine -grass
Mirabilis
hirsuta
Hairy four - o'clock
Forbs
Monarda
fistulosa
Wild bergamot
Allium
canadense
Wild garlic
Common evening -
Allium
stellatum
Prairie wild onion
Oenothera
biennis
primrose
Anemone
cylindrica
thimbleweed
Anemone
virginiana
Virginia thimblewei
Antennaria
species
Pussytoes
Androsae-
Gray- headed
Apocynum
mifolium
Spreading dogbane
Artemisia
campestris
Tall wormwood
Artemisia
frigida
Prairie sagewort
Asclepias
syriaca
Common milkweed
Asclepias
tuberosa
Butterfly -weed
Aster
ericoides
Heath aster
Aster
laevis
Smooth aster
Aster
lanceolatus
Panicled aster
Aster
novae- angliae
New England aster
Aster
oolentangiensis
Sky -blue aster
Astragalus
canadensis
Canada milk - vetch
Campanula
rotundifolia
Harebell
Comandra
umbellate
Bastard toad -flax
Coreopsis
palmata
Stiff tickseed
Dalea
candida
White prairie - cloves
Dalea
purpurea
Purple prairie -clove
Desmodium
canadense
Canadian tick - trefoi
Euphorbia
corollate
Flowering spurge
Euthamia
graminifolia
Grass -lvd goldenroc
Physalis heterophylla Clammy ground - cherry
Potentilla
arguta
Tall cinquefoil
Pycnan-
themum
virginianum
Virginia mountain -mint
Gray- headed
Ratibida
pinnata
coneflower
Rudbeckia
hirta
Black -eyed Susan
Sisyrinchium
campestre
Field blue -eyed grass
Solidago
missouriensis
Missouri goldenrod
Solidago
nemoralis
Gray goldenrod _
Upland white
Solidago
ptarmicoides
goldenrod
Solidago
speciosa
Showy goldenrod
Thalictrum
dasycarpum
Tall meadow -rue
Tradescantia
bracteata
Bracted spiderwort
Veroni-
castrum
virginicum
Culver's root
viola
pedatifida
Prairie bird -foot violet
Zizia
aurea
Golden alexanders
Ferns and
Fern Allies
Equisetum
arvense
Field horsetail
Equisetum
hyemale
Tall scouring -rush
Friends of the Mississippi River 6 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Friends of the Mississippi River 7 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
APPENDIX C Plant Species Recorded at the Gateway North Open Space Property
The following plant species were identified at the site by Friends of the Mississippi River in
2011.
Bedrock Bluff Prairie
e, E
2 Z scientific Name, Common Name Cover O Comment.
CANOPY SUBCANOPY 12 to 70 R hel9ht Total Cover: 1 to 2
UNDERSTORY SHRUB LAYER 4 to 12 R hei ht Total Cover: 2 to 3
mHa rnnescenc Leatl plant I +
Ace, n undo
Bo—lder
1
Ce/tis occidentalls
Hackbe
1
6 to 18
Invadin Into ralHe
Junl rus Virginian
Eastern redcetlar
3
6 to 10
lnvadln Into ralrie
Po u /us delM/des
Eastern cottonwood
1
30 to
45
Oltl. tledintng; trot
re a eratin
Nunus semHna
Black the
+
6 to 10
Invading Into prairie
Que,[us macroce
Bur oak
+
8 to 16
TI/la amelc.n.
American basswood
2
6 to 10
invading Into pro He
Ulm.. amenf
Amedce. elm
1
6 to 10
Seedlin s
Ulmus m/1.
Siberian elm
2
6 to 10
Invading Into praii rie
Rhus labra
Smooth sumac
3
Invadin Into rains
UNDERSTORY SHRUB LAYER 4 to 12 R hei ht Total Cover: 2 to 3
mHa rnnescenc Leatl plant I +
GROUND LAVER to 4 R height Total Covets 3 to 4
---Id.
Celtis occidental /s
Hackberry
1
Ca /us amerlcana
American hazelnut
+
A couple Of patches on
steep souM- facing, mid
slo e. NoI Invasive now.
Elea n usfff.11.
Russian olive
+
lunlperus vl /Nana
Eastern r.dc.d.r
2
Invading Into prairie
Lonlce2 tatadca
Tortartan honeysuckle
2
Invading Into prairie
rC1e. a /// solda/ls
Northern pin oak
+
acroca
Bur oak
1
more
Red oak
+
Seedlin s
Rhamnus cathert /ca
Common buckthorn
3
Dominant In many pa rts
Rhus labra
Smooth sumac
3
Invadin Into rains
Rub- s
Recumbent blackberry
+
One etch on west and
T11 /s amedcana
American basswood
2
Invading Into ralrie
Zanth x lumamedranum,
Pdckl ash
2
Invadin Into mile
GROUND LAVER to 4 R height Total Covets 3 to 4
---Id.
vinea
IdHS d aria I Grape vine
Friends of the Mississippi River + 1 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
An drop o rardll
BI bluestem
1
Boutelua curt/ endula
Side oats grama
+
Boutelua hlrsuto
Hairy gmma
Brumus Intern /s
Smooth brome
3 to 4
G-. schwe/nita!!
Schweinllz's sed e
Olcanmellum pll osanthes
Panic g rass. e. Scribner'.
+
Etymus vl /nicus
Wlld
Muhlenbe la cus (data
Nuhl
1
Seedlin s
Panicum vl atum
Switch —s
+
Poe, ratensls
KeMuck ueo rass
+
Seediln s
SchIrach duet sco alum
URIe bluestem
1
So hastrum nutans
Indian grass
+
5 ombolus hetemlep/s
Prattle dro seen
+
St/ a s ale.
Needle gmss
I 1
Seedlln s
vinea
IdHS d aria I Grape vine
Friends of the Mississippi River + 1 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Ambms/a artertrlsllfolla
Common ragweed
Anemone d. llnddca
Thlmbleweed
u/l !a canadensls
Columbine
Aster ricoldes
Heath aster
Aster 11s
Smooth aster
Aster colentanglens /s
Sk blue aster
gI
Da /ea cand/da
White rabic clover
lung —Vi in/ana
Redcedar
Seedlin s
Kuhrrla eu todo/tles
False bonese[
Lonlcera tatadca
Tartadan hone suckle
Seediln s
Monarch rrstulosa
Bergamot
+
ooh,nt/Ila a uto
Pralrte cinquefoil
Bur oak
Seedlln s
Rhamnus cathart/ca
Common buckthorn
1
Seedlings
Rosa arkansana
Prairie rose
+
Sofldago n /s
Canada oldenrod
1
e,
Sollda o walls
Gre oldenrod
+
Solids o dlda
SUff olds d
x
Ulm— mlla
Slbedan elm
I
Seedlings
vinea
IdHS d aria I Grape vine
Friends of the Mississippi River + 1 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Savanna Remnants
i Er
C v p u
z z'. Scientific Name Common Name Cover `o .- Comments
Denser in Sav -2. Sparse'
_ Denser in Sav -2. Sparse
Ca a cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
+
10
Invading
Juni p erus vi g inlana
Redcedar
1
6 to 10
•
Prunus serottna
Black cherry
+
6 to 10
•
ercus macrocarpa
Bur oak
2
B to 30
Dominant
ercus nrbra
Red oak
1
6 to 10
Invadin
Tlha americana
American basswood
1 2
10 to 35
Abundant. Some very
large. multistem.
x
Ulmus americana
American elm
+
6 to 12
Invadin
x
I Ulmus p umlla
Siberian elm
1
6 to 10
Seedlings
_ Denser in Sav -2. Sparse
Dense in Sav -2. Sparse
Juni eras viiniana
Redcedar
1
Invading
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
+
•
Q uercus macroca a
Bur oak
+
•
Quercus rubra
Red oak
+
VIM amedcana
American basswood
1
Invadin
Ulmus americans
American elm
+
x
Uimus purnfla
Siberian elm
i
Invadin
Dense in Sav -2. Sparse
Dense in Sav -1; Spame
GROUND LAYER to 4 It height Total Cover: 3 to patchy in Sav -2
Jun4perus virginfa na
q
Redcedar
2
Amo a canescens
Lead plant lant
+
•
Lonicera tatarica
Tartarian honeysuckle
1 to 2
•
Rhamnus cathartica
Common buckthorn
1 to 3
Rhus g labia
Smooth sumac
1 to 2
7911a americana
American basswood
1
Uimus pumila
Siberian elm
1
Seedlings
•
Zanthox lum ameHcanum
Prickly ash
2 to 3
Seedlings
x
Poa Pratensis
Kentucky bluegrass
i
Dense in Sav -1; Spame
GROUND LAYER to 4 It height Total Cover: 3 to patchy in Sav -2
vines
was riparia l Grape vine +
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Anorppogon gerardif
Big bluestem
+
Boutelua curti p endula
Side oats grama
+
Boutelua hirsuta
Hairy grama
+
x
Bromus Intermis
Smooth brome
3 to 4
Ommus kalmii
Prairie brome
+
Dicanthelium oli osanthes
Panic grass, d. Scribnees
+
Omus virginIcus
Wild rye
+
Seedlings
•
Panicum vl atum
Switch grass
+
Seedlings
x
Poa Pratensis
Kentucky bluegrass
i
SchJZach rium scoparium
Little bluestem
+
Sorghastrum nutans
Indian grass
+
Seedlings
x
Sporobolus heterolepis
Prairie dropseed
+
Sti p a s artea
Needle g rass
+
vines
was riparia l Grape vine +
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Common ragweed
1
Anemone d. c lindrica
Thimbleweed
+
Antennaria p Tanta g inifolia
Plantain - leaved p usse toe
+
Aster eriroldes
Heath aster
+
Aster oolentanglensis
Sky blue aster
+
Gna hallum obtuslfolium
Fragrant cudweed
+
Junlperus virgtniana
Redcedar
1
Seedlings
•
Lonicera tatarica
Tartarian honeysuckle
1
Seedlings
• I
Melilotus ofcinalis
Sweet clover
+
M0 rda fistulosa
Bergamot
+
uercus macrocarpa
Bur oak
+
Seedlings
x
Rhamnus cathartica
Common buckthorn
Solida g o canadensis
Canada goldenrod
1
Sohda o nemoralls
Grey goldenrod
+
x
Uimus pum/la
Siberian elm
1
Seedlings
vines
was riparia l Grape vine +
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Dry -Mesic Oak Woodland
11 N
de
� e�
a
= 4 ScientlRc Name :Common Name cover Comments
Random spacing: 10, 30,.:
SURCANOPY 12 to 20 ft hetaht '.Total Cover: 2 to 3
-�-
Acer negundo
Boxelder
1 to 2
6 to 15
Abundant
Celtis occidentalis
Hackberry
1
6 to 25
Some large
x
Junl rus virgintana
Redcedar
+ to 1
4 to 10
1patch
Plnus bankslana
Jack pine
+ to 2
6 to 12
on one site, but absent
everywhere else
•
Po p ulus deltoldes
Eastern cottonwood
+
20 to 45
to e, mature. _
x
Populus grandidentata
Big- toothed aspen
+
8 to 20
Patchy
•
Populus tremuloldes
Q uaking aspen
2
6 to 40
Patchy, Some very large.
Prunus. serotina
Black cherry
2
6 to 20
Dominant in parts
ercus macrocarpa
Bur oak
1
6 to 18
Dominant
ercus rubra
Red oak
2
16 to 25
Dominant in parts
x
771la americana
American basswood
1 to 2
6 to 25
Multistems predominant
x
Ulmus americans
American elm
1
6 to 18
x
ulmus umlla
Siberian elm
+ to 1
6 to 12
SURCANOPY 12 to 20 ft hetaht '.Total Cover: 2 to 3
-�-
x
Acer negundo
Boxekler
lto2
Only in one spot. Eradicate
it now.
Celtis occidentalls
Hackberry
2
Abundant
x
Juni p erus vi. iniana
Redcedar
+ to 1
I
1patch
Po ulus deltoldes
Eastern cottonwood
+
•
Pb ulus grandidentata
Big-toothed aspen
+
Patch.
x
Po pulus tremulotdes
Q uaking as en
1
Patch
•
Runs serotina
Black cherry
2
Abundant
Quercus macro ca a
Buroak
1
lQu ercus rubra
Red oak
2
Dominant
americans
American basswood
1 to 2
Co- dominant with BT
throu g out 80% of unit
x
N la
mus amerfcana
American elm
i
x
ulmus umila
Siberian elm
+tot
x
Berberis thunbergil
Japanese Barberry
+
Only in one spot. Eradicate
it now.
Corns racemosa
Grey dogwood
1
Patchy
x
Lonlcera tatarica
Tartadan honeysuckle
1. to 2
I
1patch
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
1
•
Prunus virginiana
Choke cherry
1
x
Rhamnus cathartica
Common Buckthorn
3
Dominant. Not too many
large individuals In OW -1.
More large ones in OW -2.
Many large ones in OW -3.
•
Rhus glabra
Smooth sumac
1
Patch
Ribes cy nosbati
Gooseberry
1 to 2
Rubus Ideaus cm Ix.
Black raspberry
1
zenthox lum americanum
Prickly ash
2 to 3
Co- dominant with BT
throu g out 80% of unit
x
ISonchus arvensis
Perennial sow thistle
i
x
I Verbascum tha sis
l Common mullein I
i
GROUND LAYER to 4 ft height !Total Cover: 3 to 4
G Ian1Aa
x
Carex peosylvanica
Pennsylvania sedge
2
Ca. radials
Wood sedge
+ to i
x
Phalaris arundinacea
Reed canary grass
I +
I
1patch
x
Clrstum arvense
Canada thistle
+
Grslum discolor
Field thistle
+
•
Clrsium More
Bull thistle
1
Eupatodum ru g osum
White snake root
2
•
LoM¢era tatarica
Tartadan honeysuckle
i to 2
Monarda Bstulosa
Bergamot
1
•
Rhamnus cathartica
Common buckthorn
3 to 4
seedlings
Rubus cf. ideaus
Black raspberry
1
Sao p hulatia lanceolata
Rgwo t
+
g
Sollda o canadensis
Canada goldenrod
1 to 2
x
ISonchus arvensis
Perennial sow thistle
i
x
I Verbascum tha sis
l Common mullein I
i
rflerlus qj ule mi nl6mPPI lit Vel
21
ateway North Upen Space NRMP
Dry -Mesic Oak Forest
�M �t
a U
2 Z Scientific Name Common Name Cover p ,— Comments
•
Carlea cordiformins
Bitternut Hickory
2
8 to 16
Celtis occidentalls
Hackbe
2
8 to 25
•
Fraxinus nns lvanica
Green ash
1 to 2
10 to 35
:Nang large ones on east
side of ro erty.
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
1
8 to 20
ercus macroca l e a
Bur oak
1
20 to 40
Very large; sparse; many
dead or dying; huge
spreading readin crowns.
ercus rubra
Red oak northern
2
10 to 35
771fa amencana
I Basswood, American
2
8 to 30
Ulmus amencana
American elm
1 t0 2
to 14
•
Acer negundo
Boxelder
1
Carya cordlformis
Hickory
2
•
Celds occidentalls
Hackberry
2
Abundant
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
2
Ostry viryiniana
ironwood
I. to 3
Dominant on west - facing
slopes
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
2
emus macrocarpa
Bur oak
1 to 2
ercus rubra
Red oak
2
Tilfa amencana
Basswood, American
2
Abundant
Ulmus amencana
j American elm
1 to 2
•
Lonicera tatarica
Tartarian honeysuckle
1
Prunus virginfana
Choke cherry
1
•
Rhamnus cathartica
Common buckthorn
2 to 3
Dominant; 4 to 6 foot tall
whips; few large mature
ones
Ribes cy nosbati
Gooseberry
1
Sambucus pu bens,
Red belled elder
1
In ravine
'.GROUND LAYER to 4 ft height Total Cover: 3
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Carex blandil
Bland sedge
e
f
Carex pensylvanica
Pennsylvania sedge
1 2
Forbs and
other
Actaea rube
red banebe
+
Aralla nudiraults
wild sarsaparilla
+
Ath rium fehx- femina
lady fern
+
C/rcaea lutettana
Enchanters nightshade htshade
+
Eupatorium, rugosum
White snakeroot
1
Galfum a p arfne
cleavers
+
Oryzopsis as nfolia
mountain rice grass
+
Osmorhiza claytonil
cla n's sweet cicely
+
Parthenocissus uin q uefolla
vir inia creeper
+
Phryma le tostach a
Lo p seed
+
Primus viryinfana
chokecherry
i
seedlings
x
Rhamnus cathartica
Common buckthorn
2
Seedlings
Sanicula marflandica
Maryland black snake roo
+
wtis npana
wild grape
I 1
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
..A I.A4 *.
Figure 13. Scan of the species list for the bluff prairie from the original County
Biological Survey of 9/16/1987 by J. C. Almendinger of the Minnesota DNR.
Friends of the Mississippi River 5 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Appendix D. Methods for Controlling Exotic, Invasive Plant Species
TREES AND SHRUBS
Common Buckthorn, Tartarian Honeysuckle, Siberian Elm, and Black Locust are some of
the most common woody species likely to invade native woodlands or prairies in
Minnesota. Buckthorn and honeysuckle are European species that escaped urban
landscapes and invaded woodlands in many parts of the country. They are exceedingly
aggressive and, lacking natural disease and predators, can out - compete native species.
Invasions result in a dense, impenetrable brush thicket that reduces native species
diversity.
Siberian elm, native to eastern Asia, readily grows, especially in disturbed and low- nutrient
soils with low moisture. Seed germination is high and seedlings establish quickly in sparse
vegetation. It can invade and dominate disturbed areas in just a few years. Black locust is
native to the southeastern United States and the very southeastern corner of Minnesota. It
has been planted outside its natural range, and readily invades disturbed areas. It
reproduces vigorously by root suckering and can form a monotypic stand.
Chemical Control
The most efficient way to remove woody plants that are 1/2 inch or more in diameter is to
cut the stems close to the ground and treat the cut stumps with herbicide immediately after
they are cut, when the stumps are fresh and the chemicals are most readily absorbed.
Failure to treat the stumps will result in resprouting, creating much greater removal
difficulty.
In non - freezing temperatures, a glyphosate herbicide such as Roundup can be used for
most woody species. It is important to obtain the concentrated formula and dilute it with
water to achieve 10% glyphosate concentration. Adding a marker dye can help to make
treated stumps more visible. In winter months, an herbicide with the active ingredient
triclopyr must be used. Garlon 4 is a common brand name and it must be mixed with a
penetrating oil, such as diluent blue. Do not use diesel fuel, as it is much more toxic in the
environment and for humans.
Brush removal work can be done at any time of year except during spring sap flow, but late
fall is often ideal because buckthorn retains its leaves longer than other species and is more
readily identified. Cutting can be accomplished with loppers or handsaws in many cases.
Larger shrubs may require brush cutters and chainsaws, used only by properly trained
professionals.
For plants in the pea family, such as black locust an herbicide with the active ingredient
clopyralid can be more effective than glyphosate. Common brand names for clopyralid
herbicides are Transline, Stinger, and Reclaim.
In the year following initial cutting and stump treatment, there will be a flush of new
seedlings as well as resprouting from some of the cut plants. Herbicide can be applied to
Friends of the Mississippi River 1 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
the foliage of these plants. Fall is the best time to do this, when desirable native plants are
dormant and when the plant is pulling resources from the leaves down into the roots.
Glyphosate and Krenite (active ingredient - fosamine ammonium) are the most commonly
used herbicides for foliar application. Krenite prevents bud formation so the plants do not
grow in the spring. This herbicide can be effective, but results are highly variable.
Glyphosate or a triclopyr herbicide such as Garlon can also be used. Glyphosate is non-
specific and will kill anything green, while triclopyr targets broadleaf plants and does not
harm graminoids. All herbicides should be applied by licensed applicators and should not
be applied on windy days. Care should be taken to avoid application to other plants. "Weed
Wands" or other devices that allow dabbing of the product can be used rather than
spraying, especially for stump treatment.
Undesirable trees and shrubs can also be destroyed without cutting them down. Girdling is
a method suitable for small numbers of large trees. Bark is removed in a band around the
tree, just to the outside of the wood. If girdled too deeply, the tree will respond by
resprouting from the roots. Girdled trees die slowly over the course of one to two years.
Girdling should be done in late spring to mid - summer when sap is flowing and the bark
easily peels away from the sapwood. Herbicide can also be used in combination with
girdling for a more effective treatment.
Basal bark herbicide treatment is another effective control method. A triclopyr herbicide
such as 10% Garlon 4, mixed with a penetrating oil, is applied all around the base of the
tree or shrub, taking care so that it does not run off. If the herbicide runs off it can kill other
plants nearby. More herbicide is needed for effective treatment of plants that are four
inches or more in diameter.
Mechanical Control
Three mechanical methods for woody plant removal are hand pulling (only useful on
seedlings and only if few in number), weed wrenching (using a weed wrench tool to pull
stems of one to two inches diameter), and repeated cutting. Pulling and weed wrenching
can be done any time when the soil is moist and not frozen. The disadvantage to both
methods is that they are somewhat time- consuming, as the dirt from each stem should be
shaken off. Weed wrenching also creates a great deal of soil disturbance and should not be
used on steep slopes or anywhere that desirable native forbs are growing. The soil
disturbance also creates opportunities for weed germination. This method is probably best
used in areas that have very little desirable native plant cover.
Repeated cutting consists of cutting the plants (by hand or with a brush cutter) at critical
stages in its growth cycle. Cutting in mid spring (late May) intercepts the flow of nutrients
from the roots to the leaves. Cutting in fall (about mid - October) intercepts the flow of
nutrients from the leaves to the roots. Depending on the size of the stem, the plants
typically die within three years, with two cuttings per year.
Stems, Seedlings and Resprouts
Prescribed burning is the most efficient, cost effective, and least harmful way to control
very small stems, seedlings, and resprouts of all woody plants. It also restores an important
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
natural process to fire - dependant natural communities (oak forests, for example). Burning
can only be accomplished if adequate fuel (leaf litter) is present and can be done in late fall
or early spring, depending site conditions.
If burning is not feasible, critical cutting in the spring is also effective, though it can impact
desirable herbaceous plants as well. Foliar (leaf) application of a bud - inhibitor herbicide
(Krenite) during fall is also effective. This method can also affect non - target species, though
most natives will be dormant by that time.
Prickly ash
A native shrub, prickly ash can become excessively abundant, especially in areas that have
been disturbed or grazed. Complete eradication may not be necessary, but management
may target reducing the extent of a population. Removal is most easily accomplished in the
same manner as for buckthorn - cutting shrubs and treating cut stumps with glyphosate
herbicide. Cutting can be completed at any time of the year.
Disposal
The easiest and most cost - effective method to handle large amounts of brush is usually to
stack it and burn it in winter. In areas where brush is not dense, it can be cut up into
smaller pieces and left on the ground where it will decompose in one to three years. This
method is especially useful on slopes to reduce erosion potential. Small brush piles can also
be left in the woods as wildlife cover. Where there is an abundance of larger trees, cut trees
may be hauled and chipped and used for mulch or as a biofuel. Alternatively, the wood can
be cut and used for firewood, if a recipient can be found.
FORBS
Canada thistle
While native thistles are not generally problematic, exotics such as Canada thistle are
clone- forming perennials that can greatly reduce species diversity in old fields and
restoration areas (Hoffman and Kearns 1997). A combination of chemical and mechanical
control methods may be needed at the Empire property. Chemical control is most effective
when the plants are in the rosette stage and least effective when the plants are flowering. A
broadleaf herbicide such as 2,4 -D would be appropriate for the south grassland (G1), to
minimize damage to native grasses. It is most effective when applied 10 -14 days before the
flowering stems bolt. It is applied at rate of 2 -4 lb /acre using a backpack or tractor -
mounted sprayer or in granular form. Dicamba could also be used, with the advantages
that it can be applied earlier in the spring at a rate of 1 lb /acre. Plants that do not respond
to treatment or that are more widely dispersed could be controlled mechanically.
Mechanical control, involving several cuttings per year for three or four years, can reduce
an infestation, if timed correctly. The best time to cut is when the plants are just beginning
to bud because food reserves are at their lowest. If plants are cut after flowers have
opened, the cut plants should be removed because the seed may be viable. Plants should be
cut at least three times throughout the season. Late spring burns can also discourage this
Friends of the Mississippi River 3 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
species, but early spring burns can encourage it. Burning may be more effective in an
established prairie, where competition from other species is good, than in an old field,
where vegetation may not be as dense.
Sweet clover
White and yellow sweet clover are very aggressive annual species that increase with fire.
Sweet clover was found in the brome field (G2) and would be eliminated by treatment that
eliminates the brome if prairie restoration occurs. However, it is a common plant in
agricultural areas, so if restoration is implemented, the area should be surveyed for this
species on an annual basis. Individual plants or small populations can be removed by hand -
pulling. If seed production occurs, prodigious amounts of seed could be spread at the site.
GRASSES
Smooth Brome
Burn two years in a row (late- season burns in June) followed by seeding. This will usually
be sufficient to control smooth brome. (Remember to collect seed from on -site first, and if
there is not enough, then purchase local ecotype seed from off - site). Evaluate after the two
years. If this is not working, perhaps try a cool- season overspray of a grass - specific
herbicide either in the spring (April) or in the fall (October). Using glyphosate as a cool -
season overspray herbicide application is a last resort, since it kills everything.
Reed canary grass
This species is extremely difficult to eradicate and requires repeated treatment over a
period of one to three years. A combination of burning, chemical treatment and mowing
can be used, in accessible areas, or chemical treatment alone in inaccessible areas. The
combination method starts by burning in late spring to remove dead vegetation and to
stimulate new growth. When new sprouts have reached a height of 4 to 6 inches, the site
can be sprayed with a 5% solution of a glyphosate herbicide appropriate for wetland
habitat (e.g. Rodeo). The site is then mowed in late summer, followed by chemical
application after re- growth. This treatment will stimulate new growth and germination to
deplete the seed bank. The sequence of chemical treatment and mowing are repeated for at
least a second season, and possibly a third until the grass is completely eradicated. Then
native grass and forb seed can be broadcast or drilled.
If reed canary is eradicated from an area, future management of the grassland, namely
burning, will likely keep the reed canary in check. Monitoring and mapping new
individuals or clumps should continue, however, and treated if burning is not adequate. If
the plants are small they can be removed by digging out the entire root. Generally though,
chemical treatment is more feasible. If plants are clumped, they can be treated by tying
them together, cutting the blades, and treat the cut surface with herbicide. Otherwise
herbicide should only be applied in native planted areas on very calm days to avoid drift to
non - target plants.
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Appendix E. Ecological Contractors
Following is a list of contractors to consider for implementing the management plans.
While this is not an exhaustive list, it does include firms with ecologists who are very
knowledgeable with natural resource management Unless otherwise noted, all firms do
prescribed burning. Many other brush removal companies are listed in the yellow pages
(under tree care), but most do not have knowledge or understanding of native plant
communities. We recommend hiring firms that can provide ecological expertise. Additional
firm listings can be found on the DNR website:
http: / /www.dnr. state. mn. us /gardens /nativeplants /index.html
Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) has extensive experience working with landowners
to implement natural resource management plans. FMR can assist landowners with
obtaining funding for restoration and management projects and providing project
management, including contractor negotiations, coordinating restoration and management
work, and site monitoring and evaluation.
Applied Ecological Services, Inc.
21938 Mushtown Rd
Prior Lake, MN 55372
952 - 447 -1919
www.appliedeco.com
Bonestroo Natural Resources
2335 West Highway 36
St. Paul, MN 55113
651- 604 -4812
www.bonestroo.com
Great River Greening
35 West Water St, Suite 201
St. Paul, MN 55107
651 - 665 -9500
www.greatrivergreening.org
Minnesota Native Landscapes, L.L.C. 14088 Highway 95 N.E.
Foley, MN 56329
(320) 968 -4222 Phone www.mnnativelandscapes.com
Conservation Corps Minnesota
2715 Upper Afton Road, Suite 100
Maplewood, MN 55119
(651) 209 -9900
North American Prairies
111754 Jarvis Ave NW
Annandale, MN 55302
320 - 274 -5316
info @northamericanprairies.com
Prairie Restorations, Inc.
PO Box 305
Cannon Falls, MN 55009
507 - 663 -1091
www.prairieresto.co
Friends of the 14ississippi Rimer Gateway North Open Space NR 111P