HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-07 PACKET 08.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGEND/
MEETING ITEM#
DATE 3/7/12
PREPARED BY: Parks and Recreation Zac Dockter
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST:
Consider accepting the Gateway North Open Space Natural Resources Management Plan
and placing on file.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Gateway North Open Space Natural Resources Management Plan and place on
file.
BUDGET IMPLICATION: 0.00 0.00
BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT
ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE REVIEWED APPROVED
DENIED
F PLANNING ❑
❑
❑
❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑
❑
❑
F PUBLIC WORKS ❑
❑
❑
Z PARKS AND RECREATION 2/14/12 z
z
❑
F HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS F
F
F
❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑
F
F
F ❑
❑
F
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Z MEMO/LETTER:
❑ RESOLUTION:
❑ ORDINANCE:
F ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
Z OTHER: Gateway North Open Space Natural
ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS:
Resources Management Plan
City Administrator Date
H:\zdockter\Gateway North Open Space\Council Action-GNOS Natural Resources Management Plan.doc
City of
Cotta Grove
Minnesota
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director
CC: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
John Burbank, Senior Planner
Date: February 21, 2012
Subject: Gateway North Open Space Natural Resources Plan
Introduction
In 2011, the City Council authorized a grant to partner with the Friends of the Mississippi River
organization to develop a Natural Resources Plan for the Gateway North Open Space. This property
otherwise known as "Camel's Hump" is over 50 acres of public property located along the east side of
highway 61. The plan was completed in February of 2012 and is presented for your review.
Background
The submitted Natural Resources Management Plan's purpose is to
1. Identify the existing ecological conditions on the property
2. Identify best management practices to maximize wildlife values, and retain and improve
water quality and increase community diversity
3. Document allowable uses and activities of the property
Considering the historical and biological significance of the area, the information presented in this plan
is extremely beneficial for planning future land management practices. Further, the document enables
the city to prioritize work plans and aggressively pursue grant funding to restore, protect and preserve
the integrity of the site. Some of the key management practices suggested in the document include:
1. Site -wide invasive woody plant removal /control (Buckthorn, Russian Olive, Sumac, etc.) and
treatment/removal of diseased trees such as Oak Wilt, Bur Oak Blight and Dutch Elm Disease.
2. Restore /protect bedrock bluff prairie.
3. Restore oak savanna.
4. Restore /protect dry-mesic oak forests and restore dry-mesic oak woodlands.
5. Develop long -term management practices for sustainability.
Staff believes the plan to be thorough, complete and a key step in preserving this valuable open space
for future generations.
Recommendation
Consider accepting the Gateway North Open Space Natural Resources Management Plan and placing
on file.
Gateway North Open Space Natural
Resource Management Plan
Joseph Walton
Friends of the Mississippi River
360 North Robert Street, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55101
Ph: 651 - 222 -2193 x33
January, 2012
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, Conservation Stewardship Director, Minnesota Land Trust
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... ............................... 5
LANDSCAPE CONTEXT .......................................................................................... .............................10
SITE GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER ...................................................................... ...............................
12
SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ ...............................
13
RARESPECIES ................................................................................................................... ...............................
16
HISTORIC VEGETATION ................................................................................................ ...............................
16
HISTORIC AND EXISTING LAND USE ......................................................................... ...............................
19
WATER RES OURCES ....................................................................................................... ...............................
20
Groundwater Recharge or Infiltration Areas ..................................................................... .............................20
Stormwater Management Issues ............................................................................................. .............................20
EcologicalThreats .......................................................................................................................... .............................21
ADJACENT LAND USE ..................................................................................................... ...............................
23
OakWilt .............................................................................................................................................. .............................26
BurOak Blight ............................................................................................................................... ...............................
27
EXISTING LAND COVER & ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .............27
OAK FOREST, MESIC SUBTYPE (35 ac) (2.4 ac) ................................................................ .............................31
DRY PRAIRIE, BEDROCK BLUFF SUBTYPE (7.2 acres) .................................................. .............................34
OAK WOODLAND - BRUSHLAND (13.9 acres) (2.5 ac) .................................................... .............................39
MEDIUM -TALL GRASS, ALTERED NON- NATIVE DOMINATED GRASSLAND (2.0 acres) .............42
GRASSLAND ON PIPELINE RIGHT OF WAY (1.1 Acres) ................................................. .............................42
11 to 25% IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (9.2 Acres) ............................................................... .............................42
PAVEMENT WITH 91 to 100% IMPERVIOUS COVER (0.8 Acres) ............................. .............................43
RESTORATION PROCESS ............................................................................................... ...............................
45
RestorationGoals ........................................................................................................................... .............................45
TargetPlant Communities .......................................................................................................... .............................46
RestorationProcess .................................................................................................................... ...............................
47
Site -Wide Invasive Woody Plant Removal / Control ......................................................... .............................48
RestorationPriorities ................................................................................................................... .............................48
Prescribed Burns —More Information .................................................................................. .............................52
Long -Term Monitoring and Maintenance ............................................................................ .............................53
RESTORATION SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATES .............................................. ...............................
54
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. ............................... 1
APPENDIX A Information Sources ................................................................................ ..............................1
APPENDIX B Plant Species for Restoration at GNOS Property ........................... ..............................1
APPENDIX C Plant Species Recorded at the Gateway North Open Space Property ...................1
Appendix D. Methods for Controlling Exotic, Invasive Plant Species ............... ..............................1
Appendix E. Ecological Contractors .............................................................................. ..............................1
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 Space 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 (MCBS)
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 ". 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
• 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: T27N, R21W, Sections 7 Southeast 1 /4 and
T27N, R21W, 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 Parkand 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 purposes of the Easements are to provide significant
public benefit by preserving and protecting in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the
Protected Property. The identified Conservation Values include the undeveloped and
relatively natural character of the property, the wooded bluffs and hillsides, and public
access to the property for low- impact outdoor recreation, education, and nature
observation. The Easements allow for public access, planned vegetation management
under an approved management plan and limited improvements including 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 - Rankwas °S3 °.
Friends of the Mississippi River 8 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figure 1
NATURAL AREA EASEMENT
Q Sections Data Source: MN DN R, Data Deli 1:20,000 rwi`os-
N �c
parcels wash ^
Biodiversity Moderate Areas 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet ,\ uiamiin
,V RIVER
Friends of the Mississippi River 9 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
' S
65th
1
4
S Bl 7
f
B
A
B�
0 dWs
10th
9
9
4
� H
}
? 3
? I
1
Q Conservation Easement
City Park Property
® pipeline
railroads
mcerdln3
— county rds
19
20
21
Q Sections Data Source: MN DN R, Data Deli 1:20,000 rwi`os-
N �c
parcels wash ^
Biodiversity Moderate Areas 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet ,\ uiamiin
,V RIVER
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
located in a network of city parks that form a loose greenway corridor (Figure 2). This
greenway corridor leads from the northeast end of the GNOS property, northward through
Hardwood Parkway, then eastward through Cottage Grove Trailway Corridor, then through
Kingston Park, then through the Cottage Grove Trailway Corridor again. Off to the east and
south of this corridor is the large Ravine County Park. This corridor is not continuous,
being interrupted several times by roads along the way.
The GNOS property 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 (MeCC), a
regional land protection plan of the DNR (Figure 2). During the next update of the McCC in
2012, Friends of the Mississippi River will petition the DNR to extend the McCC to include
the GNOS property.
In addition to these local and regional corridors, the GNOS property is also located along
the Mississippi River bluffs, a globally important migratory bird corridor.
Ecological significance and wildlife value
The GNOS park and 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
documentwas 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
Maplewood
mp
In
PIg " Y.Fl ' - leek i
\ A pace
N110 z \
to 4b
�4
Highland Hills
Co 15, 4
•• C C e rov rridor
• •• a _ wgg0 n z
qy
way O �••c f
y • • e W ntlg8 n r
ine l: • •
NaN rel Hi • � cotta eG va
St a • Rin P 21sn - � Vi i - eglo al Park
ark 4
• 11
• Ea Lost Vall
�
• • Prairie SN H Iti_MI
Gr oud `j e
Iv/ Rte.. Q L* s NA • R e ks
I Y�
pal off
• • • M
• • Fu o ee
• • r • N
M Slate o N • • • • � •
• t• � � � Na re Ce
or I
6
L ark e
N•�
Spring - �.___
03l Conservation Easement
HV, ssNA d
W l City Park Property N i gs SNA/N
— highways
• rare features • astl s s na owes;
Biodiversity Moderate Areas .�
Regional Parks 1:120,000 Data Source: MN DNR Data Deli
Cottage Grove park and open space N
3 1.5 0 3 Miles
— ]MeCC_2007_revised
FIGURE 2 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
Friends of the Mississippi River 11 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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 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.
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 (411B, C), and
Dickman sandy loam (32713). The other prominent soil type is the exposed bedrock,
Dorerton -Rock outcrop complex (1819F). Other soils present are Chetek sandy loam
(15513, 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 Family
or No )
age*
ibilit **
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,
411B
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
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
327B
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
Udi samments
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
Figure 4. Soils and Topography.
Friends of the Mississippi River 15 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
454F = Mahtome0i loamy sand, 2540% slopes Aerial Photo Source: LMIC,
Data Source: MN DNR Data Deli I rIVRIN 488F= BrotlaleflaggY loam, 20.50 %slopes State of Minnesota, 2010 N
7B = Hubbard loamy santl, 1 -6 %slopes 500 250 0 500 Feet n 10-ft contours 1 :5,500 N
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 were 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 VEGETATION
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 forbs (wild
flowers), with patches of shrubs and very
few to no trees. Note that the soils data and Figure 5. Pre - settlement Vegetation.
the pre - settlement vegetation data concur.
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
_anew I OSI OS 0 �1Mb A
Rnw BYan 1—.
slope —an area that is relatively degraded today. This helps explain why these areas today
are disturbed /degraded.
1,000 5W Feel A
0.000
Figure 6. Historical aerial photo from 1947.
Friends of the Mississippi River 17 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
ww Sw Mn W60.Mi. MR
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. Oftentimes 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 denselywooded. 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 current
location of State Highway 61 looking towards the site from the southwest Itcertainlyis
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 cannotbe
identified, but they look like oaks and other deciduous oak woodland associates. His
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.
I I
Figure 7. Historical ground photo from across the curent location of State Highway 61 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.
Friends of the Mississippi River 18 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Another historical photo is of a street sweeper on Hadley, 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 B. Historical photo of a street sweeper near Highway 61 on Hadley 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 (Phaiaris 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, at the 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
much of 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, 200 2) 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 others, 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 pastlSO 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 is low- density single family residential. To the west is Hardwood
Avenue, and beyond that is a parcel of forested open space with a couple of rural
residential 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 low- density residential. .
Friends of the Mississippi River 23 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figure 9. Adjacent Land Use surrounding the GNOS Property. 2010 color aerial
photograph.
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 park land,
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
Friends of the Mississippi River 24 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
os o.M o a.sW� ,M.OW A
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
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 housing) 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
Friends of the Mississippi River 25 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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 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 (Ceratosystisfagacaerum.) 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.
Friends of the Mississippi River 26 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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.
Bur Oak Blight
Bur oak blight, or "BOB" is a relatively 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
Friends of the Mississippi River 27 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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
tallgrass aspenparkland), 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 Northeastlowa 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 oakwoodland /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 an FMR ecologist in late summer and fall of 2011.
Recorded information included: primaryplant 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
Friends of the Mississippi River 28 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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.
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
1 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.
Friends of the Mississippi River 29 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
i:
Z
O
m
m
K
Z
Z
2
N
v
3
O
M
0
N
N
C
C
a
v
m
U_
J
N
V
O
O
t
a
m
Q
O
O
M
r
N
U1
LL
O
O
N
0
O
N
LIJ
0
m
E
n
U
C
'o
c
= o
it
d
O
U
a
oio
C
�k
W
r-1
r-1
d
i.n
..y
w
0
M
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
down on their trunks, indicating that they once
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
of the unit. These oaks were typifiedd by very large,
spreading crowns (Photo 1). Many of these trees
had large callused over branch stubs placed low
none of the younger trees did, which indicates that fire had formerly occurred on this site
probably 100 years 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 %ofthe 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% of 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
buckthorn control in this unit shouldbe a
Friends of the Mississippi River 32 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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. OF -2 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-
canopytrees. The guuyatthe 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 forma 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
OFA 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 from 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 oakwilt. 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 North 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). Bothofthese
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). Thetopographyof
this sitewas quite steep, with some sheer
clifffaces. Much of the slope was covered
with loose rock (talus) that had accumulated
from the weathering of the sandstone
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)
lthough 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.
Aband 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
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
seeds establish on precarious ledges, flat mid -
slopes, and anywhere soil has had a chance to
accumulate and the microclimate is somewhat
this site abounded of trees that were completely surrounded by shrubs (red cedar,
Tartarian honeysuckle, buckthorn) (Photo 2 2). 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 'AdjacentLanduse° 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 oakwilt 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 - BRUSHLAND (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 Gateway 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 port'
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 lackof
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
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
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 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
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
burning plans (Photo 26).
Friends of the Mississippi River 41
newly constructed building, was an area that had numerous prairie openings and was
dominated by large, gnarly bur oaktrees (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,
narrow strip of land was dominated by Canada goldenrod and rounded out by bergamot,
smooth brome, prickly ash, and blackraspberry, 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
Photo 28. "Grassland" on pipeline right of way
in middle of property. View looking south
from the north side of the property.
Disturbance on slope and surface repair via
erosion control blanketing.
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
FT is
Z
O O
m O
m �
K M
Z
0
Z
2
v
3
O
Cn
t6 U1
A N
� ll
O
o '
N
0
0
N
N
o
cl
cl
r �
y II
� a
I I �
a ao v
� � N
� � N
O Y a
3 m �
0 11
s d A
Ip c c
o a �
U U �
N d �
Z W
0
E c c
d v d
L L L
� 7
fV
r-1
y �I
•'y
W
Eli
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.
Friends of the Mississippi River 46 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
c
D
v
�
N
N
A
C
v
V
N
Q
J
�
U!
Dominant SoilType(s)
Target Community
OF
OF -1
4.8
Brodale flaggy loam 488E
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest MHs37
OF
OF -2
7.4
Waukegan silt loam 411 C
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 713
FDs37
11-
25%
Imp
OF -4
2.4
Dorerton Rock Outcrop 1819E
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest MHs37
11-
25%
Sav -1
4.3
Wauke an silt loam 411 B
Southern Mesic Savanna UPs24
Dorerton Rock Outcrop (1819F) and
rPave
BI -Pr
2
Hubbard 7B
Dr Bedrock Bluff Prairie UPs13c
Southern Dry -Mesic Oak Woodland
OW -3
1.1
Mahtomedi 15513
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 by this 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.
Restoration Process
Restoration is a process. It takes time to restore ecosystems to their former functioning,
sometimes this can only be approximated. It took many years to degrade the ecosystem
and biological communities of the GNOS site, so it will not be restored overnight. Many
steps are typically involved in a successful restoration. Even deciding when a restoration is
complete /successful can be very difficult. A good guide on how to accomplish restoration
is using the concept of adaptive management. Adaptive management is a strategy
commonly used by land managers and restorationists, and integrates thought and action in
the process. It can be described as a strategy that uses evaluation, reflection,
communication, and also incorporates learning into planning and management. It is set up
like a feedback loop and looks like this: Assess Problem ---) Design ---) Implement ---)
Monitor ---) Evaluate -4 Adjust ---) Assess Problem -4 and so forth. Thus, moving forward
with restoration, each round of adaptive management refines and hones the process to
better fit the conditions of the site and time. This strategy should be used at the GNOS site.
Friends of the Mississippi River 47 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
The restoration of the biological communities at the GNOS property 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 is quite rare in Washington County (personal communication
with staff at Washington Conservation District, January, 2012) 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 (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
Friends of the Mississippi River 48 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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.
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).
Friends of the Mississippi River 49 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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
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.
Friends of the Mississippi River 50 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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).
• 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: Restore /Protect 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 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
Friends of the Mississippi River 51 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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 below. 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,
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
Friends of the Mississippi River 52 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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
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.
Friends of the Mississippi River 53 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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.
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
priority. Work units correspond with those shown in Figure 12.
Friends of the Mississippi River 54 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Cost/
Cost
Year
Season
Units
Activity
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
7.2
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, oakforest -4
1
late spring
OW -2
unit, and oak woodland -2 unit.
BI -Pr, Sav -
1, OF -4,
15.3
100
1,530
fall
OW -2
Treat exotic res routs.
Monitor for bur oaks for Oak Wilt disease (July -
ri
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 wnter for marcescent leaves
Win ter
OW -2
those that do not dro
Friends of the Mississippi River 54 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Friends of the Mississippi River 55 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
BI -Pr, Sav -
1, OF -4,
15.3
1,050
1
Any
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
Breeding bird survey , after restoration
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 oakwoodland -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).
2.9
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. Allowto resprout. If necessary, foliar or
2
Sept-Oct
2, OF -3
basal bark treat with G lyphosate 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
necessary. Plant shrubs at a low density.
Friends of the Mississippi River 55 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Friends of the Mississippi River 56 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
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
All
Annual ecological evaluation and assessment
54
1,030
Subtotal 62,920
PHASE 3. RESTORE DRY -MESIC OAK WOODLANDS
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. Cutandtreat
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 in spring.
OW -1,
Summer,
OW -3,
14.5
100
1,450
4
fall
OPW -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 allowfire 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,
woodland graminoids and (orbs. Plant shrubs at
14.5
1000
14,500
5 or 6
fall
OPW -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
0 PW -1
those that do not drop).
3
All
Annual ecological evaluation and assessment.
1 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.
Table 5. GNOS Long -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 ever 2 -5 years.
7.2
300
2160
Spring or fall
Sav -1, Sav -2
Burn the Savanna units ever 2 -5 ears.
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, OPW -1
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
All
Evaluation and assessment by ecologist
— spring
BI -Pr, Sav -1, OF -4,
OW -2, OW -1, OW-
Breeding bird surveys second year after
29.6
1200
June
3, OPW -1
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 North Open Space NRMP
C
`
N N
L D
p j
N
Yr
A
Activity
u
V w
�, o
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
2
winter
res 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 lowdensit .
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 res routs.
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
Winter
Monitor and assess all units.
4,600
Friends of the Mississippi River 58 Gateway North 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
is a minimum. More will likely be necessary.
Friends of the Mississippi River 59 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Information Sources
.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 (8 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 of earthworm 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.
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 Dakota 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 _ pla ins
.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.uslnrlindex.html
Friends of the Mississippi River 1 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Natural history of MN, bibliography (DNR):
http: / /www.dnr. state. mn. us/ snas /naturalhistory_resources.ht"
Earthwormwebsite: httl2://www.nrii.umn.edu/worms/
Forest Ecology:
httl2:I/cffe.cfans.unm.edu/
Bur Oak Blight
httn: / /www.mvminnesotawoods.umn.edu /2010 /09 /bur- oak- blieht- bob -in- minnesota
Oak Wilt
http :/ /www.dnr.state.nm.usItreecare /forest healthloakwiltlindex.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)
Shrubs
Rosa cmx Smooth
Forbs
Anemone
cylindrica
thimbleweed
Antennaria
spp.
_
Pussytoes
Aquilegia
canadensis
Columbine
Asc /epias
verticillata
Whorled milkweed
Asc /epias
tuberose
Butterfly -weed
Asc /epias
viridiflora
Green milkweed
Asc /epias
synaca
Common milkweed
Aster sericeus
Silky aster _
Coreopsis
Oolentan-
Stiff tic kseed
Lysimachi ciliate
Mirabilis hirsute
Monarda fistulosa
Oenothera
Oenot
O xali s
Pediomelur
Pediomelur
Fringed loosestrife
Hairy four - o'clock
Wild ber _q amot
Common evening -
primrose
Cleland's evening -
primrose
Violet wood- sorrel
Aster
I
Sky -blue aster
_giensis
As ter encoides
Heath aster
Aster
laevis
Smoo aster
Crassi-
Astragalus
carpus
Bu ffalo -bean
—�
Toothed evening
Calylophus
s errulata
primrose
Campanula
r otundif olia
Harebell
Coreopsis
p almate
Stiff tic kseed
Da /ea
p
Pur ple prairie - clover
Da /ea
c andida
Wh ite prairie-clover
carolini-
Delphinium
a num
Pra irie larkspur
Desmodium
illinoense
Illinoi tick - trefoil
Euphorbia
corollate
Flow ering spurge
Obtuse -
Gnaphalium
folium
Swee everlasting
Helianthem
um
b
Hoa frostweed
Helianthus
pauciflorus
Stiff sunflowe
Heuchera
richardsonii
Alum -root
Common St. John's -
Hypericum
perfo ratum
wort
eupato-
Kuhnia
roi
False boneset
Round - headed bush
Lespedeza
capitata
clover
Liatris
aspera
Rough blazing star
Liatris
punctata
Dotted blazin star
Liatris
cylindracea
Cylindric blazing star
Linum
sulcatum
Grooved yellow flax
Lobelia
spicata
Rouah- spiked Lobeli
Penstemon
Physalis
Potenti
Pycnan-
themum
Scutellana
Sene
Silene
biennis
clelandii
violacea
esculentum
argophyllum
grandiflorus
virginiana
arguta
vir ini
leo nardi
plattensis
antirrhina
_Sisyr inctium
campestre
So lidago
nemoralis
Solidago
rigida
Solida
speciosa
Viola
Zizia
Silvery sc -pea
Large - flowered
beard - tongu
Ground - cherry
Tall cinquefoil
Virginia mountain -
mint
Leonard's sku llcal
Prairie ragwort
Sleepy catchf
Field blue -eyed
grass _
Gray goldenrod_
Stiff goldenrod _
Showy goldenrod
Bird - foot violet
Heart- leaved
alexanders
Friends of the Mississippi River 1 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (UPs13c)— cont'd.
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Grasses,
Rushes and
Sedges
And
gerardii
Big bluestem
Bouteloua
curtipendula
Side -oats gram
Bouteloua
hirsute
Hairy grama
Calamovilfa
longifolia_
San reed - g rass
Carex
pens ylvanica
Sunshine sedg
Cyperus
sch weinitz ii
Schweinitz' cyperus
Cyperus
lup ulinus
Hop -like cyperus
Elymus
wie gandii
Canada wild rye
Eragrostis
spe ctabilis
Purple lovegrass
Muhlenbergia
cu ip data
Plai muhl
Few - flowered panic
Panicum_
oligosanthes
grass
Panicum
wilcoxianum
Wilcox's panic grass
Panicum
perlongum
Long - leaved panic grass
Linnear - leaved panic
Panicu
linearifolium
grass _
Panicum
leibergii
Leiberg's panic grass
Schizachyrium
scoparium
Little bluestem
Sorghastrum
nuta_ns
Indian grass
Sporobolus
heterolepis
Pra dropseed
Sporobolus
asper
Rough dropseed
Stipa
spartea
Porcupine -grass
Friends of the Mississippi River 2 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Southern Dry -Mesic Oak Forest (MHs37)
For
bedstraw
Brachy-
I Forbs_cont'd)
Pyrol
elliptica
Common pyrola
An emone quinquefoli Woo - anemone
An emone
virginiana
Tall thimble
Pyrola
secunda
One -sided pyrola
_ White aven
androsaemifo
blanda
_
Ranunculus
abortivus_
Kidney -leaf butter_i
Apocynum
lium
Spreading dogbane
Ranunculus
recu rvatus
Hooked cro wfoot
Aquilegia
canadensis
Columbine
Rubus
pubescens
Dwarf raspberry
Aralia
nudicaulis
Wild sarsaparilla
Sanguinaria
canadensis
Bloodroot
Aralia
racemosa
American spikenard
Long - s talked sedge
He uchera
Gregarious black
_
Carex
Side - flowering
Sanic
-
greg
snakeroot
Arenaria
I lateriflora
sandwort
Marsh sedge
marilandica
Maryland black
snakeroot
Arisaema triphyllum Jack - the - pulpit
As clepias ex
Poke milkweed
_Sanicu
lasionuera
Carrion - flower
As ter
cil
Lindle aster
_Smilax_
flexicaulis
Zig -zag goldenrod
Aster
l aterif lorus
Sid - flowering aster
_Solidag
hispida
Hairy goldenrod
Aster
macrop
I Larg - leaved aster
_Solidago
Solidago
uligi
Bog go ldenrod
Solomon's -seal
Oolentan-
-
Streptopus
lanceolatus
Rosy twisted -stalk
Aster
giensis
Sky-blue ast
Thalictrum
dasycarpum.
Tall meadow-rue
Ast
folius
Tail-leaved
Thalictrum
—
Thalictru
dioicum
thalictroides
Early meadow-rue
-
Rue-anemone_
thal
Cau lophyllum thali ctroides Blue co hosh
Phryma
le_p
Canada enchanter's
Circaea
lutetiana
nightshade
Trien tells
Trillium
borealis
cernuum
Starflower _
Noddingtrillium
Llin tonic
borealis
Bluebead lily
Cryptotaen is
canadensis
Honewort
Trillium
grandiflorum
Large - flowered
trillium
Polygonatum
pu bescens
Pointed - leaved
Osmunda claytoniana
Interru
_
Desmodium
glutinosum
tick - trefoil
Uvularia
Ucularia
–
grandiora
sessilifolia
Yellowbellw
Pale bellwo
Dioswrea
villos Wddyam_
Fragaria
vesca
Wood strawberry
eronr
Fragaria
Common strawb
castrum
virginicum
Culver's root
(multiple
Galium
arine
f
Cleavers
Viola
species
s
species)
Galium
ale
Northern bedstraw
Zizia
_
_.
Golden
aurea
alexanders
Galium
ncmnnum
Elegambedstraw
c......777 - - --� _ --A
Galium I trii lorum
bedstraw
Brachy-
Geranium
I ma culatum
Wild _ge ranium
elytrum
erectum
Bearded shorthusk
Geum
can adense
_ White aven
Care,
blanda
Charming sedge
Geum
trii orum
_ Prairie smoke
Care,
deweyana
Dewey's sedge
He lianthus
hirs
Woodland sunflower
Care,
gracillima
Graceful sedge
Hel ianthus
str umosus
_ Roug -leaf sunflo
Carex
peckii
Peck's sedge
He patica
am ericana
Rou -lobed hepa
Carex
pedunculata
Long - s talked sedge
He uchera
rich ardsonii
Alu -root
Carex
pensylvanica
Pennsylvania sedge
Lathyrus
ven
_ Veiny p
Carex
ten era
Marsh sedge
M aianthemu m
ca nadense
Canada mayflower
Carex
radiata
Stellate sedge
V
I
Racemose false
_
Elym u
hystri,
_
Bottleb rush bra
Masan th emum
racemosum
Solomon's -seal
Festuca
subverti
Nodding fescue
Starry false
Oryzopsis
asperifolia
- Moutain rice- grass
Maianth emum
stellatum
Solomon's -seal
-
Mit chella
ra pers
Partridge -berry
Schizachne
purpurascens
False melic grass
Ferns and Fern Allies
Os morhiza claytonii Clayton's sweet Cice
Os morhiza
longistylis
Anise -ro
Athyrium
fill, femina
Lady -fern
Phryma
le_p
Lopseed
Dryopteris
intermedia
Fancy fern
_�
Clammy ground-
Equisetum
—
Meado whorsetail
Physalis
he terophylia
cherry
Matteuccia
I struthiopteris
_ Ostric -fern
Polygonatum
pu bescens
Hairy Solo me n's -seal
Osmunda claytoniana
Interru
Polygonatum
bif iorum
Giant Solomon's -seal
Pteridiumaquilinum
Bracken
Friends of the Mississippi River 3 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Southern Dry -Mesic Oak Forest (MHs37) —cont'd
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Genus
Species
Common Name
Canopy Trees &
understor 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 Bl cherr
Quercus
alba White oak
Quercus
ellipsoidalis Northern pin oak
Quercus
macrocarpa Buroak
Quercus
rubra Northern red oak
Tilia
americana Basswood
Ulm
americana American elm
Ulmus
rubra red elm
Shrubs
Amelanchier
interior Juneberry
At fanchier
_
laevis Smooth juneberry
Corn us
alternifolia Pag do gwood
Corn us
_
rugosa Ro und - leaved dogwood
Cornus _T
racemosa Gray dogwood
Corylus
: 4 cornuta
americana American hazelnut
Cory lus
Beaked hazelnut
Crataeg
T cmx Hawthorn
Diervilla
lonicera_ Bush hone ysuckle
Ilex
verticilla 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 Bla raspberry
Rubus
idae Re raspberry
Sambucus
race Red - berried Elder
Symphoricarpos
alba Snowberry
len tago
Nannyberry
Viburnum
rafinesq
Downy arrow -wood
Vibu
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Southern Dry -Mesic Oak Woodland (FDs37)
Scientific name
Common name
Oryzopsis asperifolia
Mountain rice grass
Forbs
Festuca subverticillata
Nodding fescue
Amphicarpaea bracteata
hog - peanut
Elymus hystrix
Bottlebrush grass
Antenaria spp.
pussytoes
Shrubs
Anemone americana
round -lobed hepatica
Amelanchier spp.
Juneberries
Anemone quinquefolia
Wood anemone
Cornus alternifolia
Pagoda dogwood
Apocynum androsaemifolium
Spreading dogbane
Cornus racemosa
Gray dogwood
Aquilegia Canadensis
columbine
Cornus rugosa
Round - leaved dogwood
Aralia nudicaulis
wild sarsaparilla
Corylus americana
American hazelnut
Aster cordifolius
heart- leaved aster
Corylus cornuta
Beaked hazelnut
Aster macrophyllus
Large - leaved aster
Diervilla lonicer
Bush honeysuckle
Aster sagittifolius
Tail- leaved aster
Prunus virginiana
Chokecherry
Athyrium filix- femina
lady fern
Prunus pennsylvaruca
pin cherry
Campanula rotundifolia
harebell
Ribes cynosbati
Prickly gooseberry
Carex pensylvanica
Pennsylvania sedge
Sambucus racemosa
Red berried elder
Circaea lutetiana
enchanter's nightshade
Symphoricarpos albus or occidentalis
Snowberry /wolfberry
Desmodium glutinosum
pointed - leaved tick- trefoil
Viburnum lentago
Nannyberry
Eupatoriumrugosum
white snakeroot
Viburnum rafenesquianum
Downy arrowwood
Euphorbia corollata
flowering spurge
Xanthoxylum americanum
Prickly ash
Fragaria virginiana
wild strawberry
Trees
Galium boreale
northern bedstraw
Betula papyrifera
Paper birch
Galium toflorum
three- flowered bedstraw
Carya cordiformes
Bitternut hickory
Geranium maculatum
wild geranium
Celtis occidentalis
Hackberry
Geum canadense
white avers
Ostrya virginiana
Ironwood
Helianthus strumosus
woodland sunflower
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
Maianthemum canadense
Canada mayflower
Quercus alba
White oak
Osmorhiza claytonii
sweet cicely
Quercus elli psoidalis
Northern pin o ak:
Osmunda claytoniana
Interrupted fern
Quercus macrocarpa
Bur oak
Pteridium aquilinum
Bracken fern
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
Phryma leptostachya
lopseed
Polygonatum biflorum
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
Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge
Friends of the Mississippi River 5 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Southern Mesic Savanna (UPs24)
Trees
gerardii _
Big bluestem
Bromus
Quercus
macrocarpa
Buroak
bicknellii
Shrubs
Carex
meadii
Mead's sedge
Amorpha
canescens
Lead - p lant.
Elym us
Prunus
virgin, m
Chokecherry
helianthoides
Rosa
arkansa
Prairie rose
panig
Salix
humilis
Prairie willow
Schizachyrium
Symphori-
Little bluestem
Sorghastrum
nutans _
carpos
able
Snowberry
Prairie dropseed
Grasses.
Rushes and Sedees
Porcupine -grass
Forbs
Andropogon
gerardii _
Big bluestem
Bromus
kalmii _
Kalm's brome
Carex
bicknellii
Bicknell's sedge
Carex
meadii
Mead's sedge
Carex
muhlenbergii
Muhlenberg's sedge
Elym us
canadensis
Canada wild rye
Heliopsis
helianthoides
Long- leaved
Dicanthelium
perlongum
panig
Panicum
virgatum
Switchgrass
Schizachyrium
scoparium.
Little bluestem
Sorghastrum
nutans _
Indian grass
Sporobolus
heterolepis
Prairie dropseed
Stipa
spartea
Porcupine -grass
Forbs
Northern plains
Allium
canadense
Wildg
Allium
stellatum
Prai wild onio
Anemone
canadensis
Can ada anemone
Lilium
phicum
Long- headed
Anemone
cylin dr
thimbleweed
Anemone
virg iniane
Virgi thimblewee
Antennari
species _
Pussytoes
themum
Androsae-
Solomon's -se
Apocyn
mifolium
Spreading dogbane
Artemisia
campesd
Tall wormwood
Ar temisia
f - igida
Prai sagewort
Ascle
syriaca
Com mon milkweed
Ascle
tuberose
Butt erfly -weed
Ast
ericoides
Hea aster
Aster
laevis_
Smo oth aster
Aster
lanc eolatus
Pan icled aste
Aster
nova an gliae
New En gl an d aster
Aster
oolen
Sky blueast
Astragalus
canaden
Canada milk -vetch
Campanula
rotundifo
Harebell
Comandra
umbellate_
Bastard toad -flax
Coreop
palmate
Stiff tickseed
Dalea _
candida
White prairie- clover
Dalea _
purpurea
Purple prairie- clove:
Desmodium
canadense
Canadian tick- trefoil
Euphorbia
corollate
Flowering spurge
Euthamia`
graminifolia
Grass -lvd goldenrod
orbs (cont'd)
Fragaria_
virginiana
Common strawberry__
Ga lium
boreale
N orthern bedstraw
Ge ntiana x
billingtonii
C losed gentian
Ge
trii forum
Prairie smoke
Hel ianthus
maximiliani
M aximilian's sunflower
Hel ianthus
pauciorus
Stiff sunflower
Heliopsis
helianthoides
Ox -ey
Heterothe
villosa
Prairie golden aster
Heucher
richardsonii
Alum -root
Lat hyrus
venosus
Vemypea
Round - headed
Lespedez
capitata
bush - clover
Liad _
aspera
Rough blazin star
Northern plains
Liatris
ligulistylis
blazing star
Liatris
pycnostach_ya
_
Ga
_
Philadel-
_
Lilium
phicum
Woodlily
Lobelia
spicata
Rough- spiked Lobelia
Maian-
themum
racem
False So lomon's -seal
Melon-
Starry false
themum
stellatum
Solomon's -se
Mirabilis
hirsute
H a i ry fou r-o'c ck
Monarda
fistulosa
Wildbergamot
Common evening -
Oenothera
biennis
_ p rimrose
Pedicularis
canadensis
Wood - betony
Phlox
pilosa
Prairie phlox
Physalis
heterophylla
Clammy ground - cherry
Paten tilla
arguta
Tall cinquefoil
Pycnan-
themum
virginianum
Virginia mountain -m
Gray- headed
Ratibida
pinnata
coneflower _
Rudbeckia
hirta
Black -eyed Susan
Sisyrinchium
campestre
_
Field blue-eyed grass
Solidago
missouriensis
Missouri goldenrod
_
Solidag
nemoralis
Gray goldenrod
Upland white
Solidago
ptarmicoides
goldenrod
Solidago
speciosa
Showy goldenrod
Thalictrum
dasycarpum
Tall meadow -rue
Tradescantia
bracteata
Bracted spiderw
Veron i-
castrum
virginicum
_ Culver's root
Viola
pedatifida
Prairie bird-foot violet
Ferns and
Fern A llies
Equisetu arvense
Field horsetail
Equisetum_ hyemale
T all scourin -rush
Eauisetum laeviaatum
Smooth scouring -r
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
CANOPY SUSCANOPY 12 to 70 R MI M1t Total Covar: 1 to 2
UNDER
Acer n undo
Boxelder
2 to 3
Amor be wh.hs
Celtis att,den[alis
Hackbe
1
6 to 18
Invadln m[o an
Call accidental,
Juni ms w al a.
Eastem redcedar
3
6 to 10
Investing Into prairie
Co lus americans
Po Iu5 deltpides
Eastem cottonwood
1
30 W
45
Old, declining: not
hi enesitin
Eleagnus an .. ffh.
Avnus serotina
Black chem,
+
6 ro 10
)u" co ana
Quenc ma.
Bur oak
+
8.18
tnnice a tatanca
TRre americans
American basswood
2
6 to 10
lnvadlng Into pr aine
uercus efL seal is
Ulmas amencana
Amercan elm
1
6 to 10
uercus maooca a
Ulmus hhl.
Siberian elm
2
6 to 10
ln.dmg into pralne
uercus rubra
Red oak
+
+
UNDER
STORY SHRUB LAYER 4 to
12 R height Total Cover:
2 to 3
Amor be wh.hs
Lead plant
+
+
Call accidental,
Hackherr
1
Co lus americans
American hazelnut
+
3 to 4
A couple of patches on
steep south- facing, into
slope. Not Invasive now.
Eleagnus an .. ffh.
Russan olive
+
+
)u" co ana
Eastem redcedar
2
+
Invading Into rain
tnnice a tatanca
Tartanan honeysuckle
2
+
Invading Into pan
uercus efL seal is
Northern pin oak
+
1
uercus maooca a
But oak
1
+
uercus rubra
Red oak
+
+
Rhamhus cathartica
Common buckthorn
3
1
DOmalpant In many" rts
Rhus bDre
Smooth sumac
3
+
Invadln Into pram
Rubus
Recumban[ bleckbe
+
+
One Kh on west end
HIM amehcana
American basswood
2
I 1
Invadln into phi fine
Zanthox hen americanum
Pnkl ash
1 2
1
11mandl.g into prall
GROUND LAYER to 4 N hall Total Covar: 3 to 4
teway North Open Space NRMP
Mdro o on Rl
Big bluestem
1
eOYrelua caKi ehdaia
Side Oats gnuaa
+
Boulelua hirsute
Hal ram.
x
Bromus inlermis
Smooth brome
3 to 4
Carer schwemiUrd
Schwelnitz's sedge
+
Dlcahtheilum oll osanthes
Panic limits, a. Scnbner's
+
E .. Incas
Wild rye
+
Mubleriberpla cus hoata
Mainly ghass
1
Panicum w atum
s sitcM1 rass
+
x
Post pationso.
Kentucky bluegrass
+
Schosach dum scotoarium
little bluestem
1
So nostrum nutans
Indian rass
+
OroDOlus heterofe fs
Prdlrie are seed
+
Stipa rtes
I Needle gram
I 1
Parbs
Ambrosia antemadifoli.
Common m weed
1
Memone a. clordnc,
Thimbleweed
1
4o Wlegas canadensis
Columbine
+
Aster a tcoldes
Heath aster
+
Aster laevis
Smooth aster
+
Astor oolentan lenses
Sky blue aster
+
Dale. ranoina
White prairle clover
+
Jo" .s s w
Redcedar
2
Seal
Kuhnla etaath.ldil
False boneset
+
tonlcera tatanca
Tartanan honeysuckle
1
Seedlings
x
M¢RIphat.0Wchalls
S.cct<ov¢I
+
As ..ads Rmulosa
Ber .mot
+
Poachnila a Mt.
Prairie ch,queW
+
Quarcus
Bur oak
+
seedlin s
Rhamnu�athanica
Common buckthom
I
Seedlings
Rosa arks....
Prairie Jose
+
Solid. o nadensis
Canada oidenrod
1
Salida o nemorafls
Gray goldenrod
I +
Solids o ri Ida
SOB goldenhod
+
Ulmus u—da
Siberian elm
1
Seetllin s
teway North Open Space NRMP
Savanna Remnants
58
E {
i i SClenhhc Name Common Name Cover p p Comments
Denser in Sav-2. Sparx
CANOPY W-OO It height 'ITOtaI COVen 2 to 3 in Sav -1
Denser in SPY-2. Sparse
SUBCANOPY 12 to 20 N height Total Cover: 2 to 3 I 3av-1
Carta comber rmis
BlNernut hicks
I
10
madam
Junlyerus wriwilame
Reeceaar
1
6 to 10
•
aunas :.tattoo
Black charry
1 to 2
6 to 10
•
[a
Bur oak
2
0 to 30
Comment
Quercus more
Rea oak
1
6 to 10
Invading
Title amencana
American bixwood
2
10 to 35
Abundant. Some very
la a multlstsn.
Works ma rlwna
American elm
+
6 to 12
lovaain
U/mus mile
Siberian elm
1
6 tc 10
Denser in SPY-2. Sparse
SUBCANOPY 12 to 20 N height Total Cover: 2 to 3 I 3av-1
Dense in Geri Swrx
UNDERSTORY /SHRUB DYER 0 to 12 R height Total Cover: 2 to 3 in Sav-1
Jum eras vi m 'dn
iteticedar
I
madam
Runts sem[ina
Black cM1e
+
•
carya
Bur oak
1 to 2
•
Querc taboo
Red oak
+
Tilia ..ca-,a
American basswood
1
Invading
U /mus amenana
American elm
L
uimts pumua
sibenan elm
1
lovaain
Dense in Geri Swrx
UNDERSTORY /SHRUB DYER 0 to 12 R height Total Cover: 2 to 3 in Sav-1
Dense in Se l Sparse
GROUND Lai to 0 R height Total Cover: 3 to patchy in Sl
Grinnell
joreems Wsrwys,
Reaceaer
2
Amorpha caa.Pc
Leadnerit
•
LtniCera faranca
Tartanan honeysuckle
1 to 2
•
fthamnus [athartira
Common buckthorn
1 to 3
Rnus glabra
Smooth sumac
1 [0 2
Tnla amencana
Amenwn basswood
L
U/mas umila
Sharon elm
t
2anlhoxylam amen am m
Rihl ash
2 to 3
Sea va.m.
Kentucky blue,ons
1
Dense in Se l Sparse
GROUND Lai to 0 R height Total Cover: 3 to patchy in Sl
Grinnell
non H, o e I y ....../ /vet
a eway. jil orun up en Space NRMP
Acd,.,,co .ratan
BI bluestem
Sorteloa CUrtipentlula
Side oats grams
aoutelua hirsute
Hory gro
Bmmus saterm.
Smooth boom.
3 to 0
Btomus kalmii
Stable brome
+
IFCanMelNm oligoammes
Panic gran, cf Scribner':
Elymus vlr Inicus
Valid rye
"n"mr, vi'whar,
Swhcngra
Sea va.m.
Kentucky blue,ons
1
Sotimach n nu
Little bluestem
+
sghastmm notions
m
Indian gass
s oroamos havensheris,
Prairie dro seed
+
5[l s rtes
Needle goes
wroa'
Ambrosia
Cu mmun w eetl
1
Ane mone cf. e
cf. oy
ee
+
Antennar artasa[a
iaplanG inifp/ia
Plantain
Plavetl pusx to
Aster socio
Heath aster
Asteroolencar tan
5kyblue aster
+
tin
- ir s . rum
:a tlweetl
+
Jusn"o liumon e
JuniOerus vlrylniana
R [ dcedar eaar
1
Sellinz
•
Con ker, tatanca
i ho ne suckle
1
Sell
s
•
M S
Sweet clover
Sweet
,da comic.
M onartl tis[uosa
oa a
Bergamo[
s
Bur oak
5eedlin s
th
fthamnus [aarti [a
Commonbuc
Solidi t naa.nsm
Banaaa goldenrod
1
sofida o orans
Gre o=us
U/mus tmua
9berian elm
1
Seedlm s
Vi n c
WFS ri and Grape vine +
non H, o e I y ....../ /vet
a eway. jil orun up en Space NRMP
Dry -Mesic Oak Woodland
SUBCABOPY 12 to 20 N height Total Cover: 2 to 3
Aderneg
Boxeltler
tto2
_
E
zi Scientific Name
Co.... Ram Cava o.' com ants
Mackberry
1
6 to 25
Random spacing: 10, 30,
CANOPY
20 -80 it height (Total Cover: 2 to 3 50 it
SUBCABOPY 12 to 20 N height Total Cover: 2 to 3
Aderneg
Boxeltler
tto2
16W 15
Abundant
Wood sedge
Celbs otaeentads
Mackberry
1
6 to 25
Some lame
Junl eras virtimsers
Redcedar
+ to 1
4 to 10
No. bankslana
Jack pine
+to t
6 to 12
On one site, but absent
e,,baus ore
Po alas delroidr,
Eastern cottonwaotl
+
20 to 45
large, mature.
votes., grandidentate
Big toothed aspen
+
8 to 20
Patchy
Popi lim —mass,
Q uaking aspen
2
610 40
PatoM1. Some ve la e.
prunes 5erodna
Black ban
2
6 to 20
Dominant in parts
Quercus m- -does
But oak
1
6 t 18
Dominant
Quercus rube.
Rod oak
2
6 to 25
Dominant in parts
seedlin
Its amen[.,
American banswood
1 W 2
6 to 25
Multlrtems predominant
x
Ulmus americans
American elm
1
6 to 18
ulmus arms.
Siberian elm
+ to 1
6 to 12
•
soi arvensis
Perenual sow thistle
1
SUBCABOPY 12 to 20 N height Total Cover: 2 to 3
4 to 12 R height Total Cover: 4 to 5
Arerne undo
Boxeltler
1 to 2
Only in and spat+ Eradicate
it n
Wood sedge
Odes; ociidentahs
Mackbeny
2
vou""s ar.nemacea
Abundant
Junipervs vi i na
Randal.,
+ to 1
pa delroides
Eastern ommo.potl
1
Poulus grandidentata
Big - toothed aspen
+
+
Patch
Po alas me —hedes
Q uaking aspen
1
t
N'rh
vrunus serobna
Black 1heor,
2
2
Abundant
Quercus macroearya
Buroak
1
1 to 2
Quercus rubs
Red oak
2
1
Dominant
Till. americans
American basswood
1.2
3to4
Cmd minant with BT
throu out 80% Of unit
seedlin
Dlmus amanicau.
American elm
1
t
x
Ulmus pampa
Siberian elm
+to
4 to 12 R height Total Cover: 4 to 5
GROUND LAYER to 4 N height Total Cover: 3 to 4
Gtaminoids
Carex pensylvanira
aerbens Chum ergii
Japan Se Barberry
Only in and spat+ Eradicate
it n
Wood sedge
Comas racemose
Grey dowaod
t
vou""s ar.nemacea
Patchy
Lonicera tatanca
Taman— hone suckle
1 to 2
vrvnus semtina
Black dh
1
prunes o i
Choke the
1
+
sheerness cathartice
Common Buckthorn
3
t
Dominant. Not too many
large Individuals in 01
More serge ones in 01
Many large ones in OW -3.
IS, glade.
Smooth sumac
1
2
Patch
Rib,, cynosbatl
Gooseberry
1 to 2
1 to 2
Rebus seeaus cm Ix.
Black ras der
1
1
Zanthax ium amanranum
Pnckl ash
21a 3
3to4
Cmd minant with BT
throu out 80% Of unit
seedlin
Rubes cC lneaus
Black aspber
t
scrophuiaria lanceolate
Figwort
GROUND LAYER to 4 N height Total Cover: 3 to 4
Gtaminoids
Carex pensylvanira
Pennsylvens sedge
2
c.rex radio[.
Wood sedge
+ to 1
vou""s ar.nemacea
Raea conar, gress
I to
Forbs
Cbsium arvense
Canada thistle
Cbsum discolor
hold thistle
+
Cbsium vulare
Bull thistle
t
eade ry osum
Whit, snake not
2
Lookers tatanca
Tor nmen honeysuckle
1 to 2
Monarea FStulosa
Bergamot
1
Shaul cathertra
Common buckthorn
3to4
seedlin
Rubes cC lneaus
Black aspber
t
scrophuiaria lanceolate
Figwort
Soraago canaeemal
Canada goldermad
1M2
•
soi arvensis
Perenual sow thistle
1
•
Verbascwn thapsis
Common mullein
1
Cn eel uJ U] ul e (✓uJJIJJ Ip IAIVel
n Space NRMP
Dry -Mes is Oak Forest
Em
_ Er
iZ SCienpfic Name Common Name Cover p,—
CANOPY 20 -80 N height Total Cover: 2 to 3
12 to 20 k height Total Cover: 3 to 6
deal cor66orMns
Bltternut Hickon,
2
8 t 16
Cash, canderanis
Hackber,
2
8 t 25
•
Frasinus scruslIverfat
Green ash
1 to 2
10 m 35
many large ones on east
side of property.
red baneberry
vrpdus second,
Black Cryan,
1
8 to 20
Aran, dddtaws
was sarzapanga
s
a
Bur a
1
20 to a0
Very large; sparse; many
dead or dying; huge
di
spread crowns.
lady fern
Queroo s pubs
Rod oak, northern
2
10.35
ort,ea Nteaana
Enchanters mgo shade
]ilia amend,
Basswood, Amercan
2
8 to 30
Eu atorium rogospar
White snakeroot
UMUS americans
American elm
I to 2
8 t I4
Guam, arsome
12 to 20 k height Total Cover: 3 to 6
UNDER"ORY /SHRUB LAYER 4 to 12 R height Thal Cover: 2 to 3
•
Acerne unOo
Bassoon
1
Ca a coNi( is
Hicko
2
•
Celbz ocridentalls
Hockaday,
2
Abundant
red baneberry
Flatus, ns ivaniea
Green ash
2
Aran, dddtaws
was sarzapanga
Os[ s vl in a
Ironwood
1.3
Dominant on west - (acing
Notes
lady fern
Prunes semnna
Black theory
2
ort,ea Nteaana
Enchanters mgo shade
Quercus macrdcarpa
Bur oak
1 W 2
Eu atorium rogospar
White snakeroot
Que pubs
0.ed disk
2
Guam, arsome
cleavers
rya amencara
Basswootl American
2
Abundant
ountai n rice gross
bonds acrywh a
American elm
1.2
osmomha Clafond
UNDER"ORY /SHRUB LAYER 4 to 12 R height Thal Cover: 2 to 3
•
Codices tatance
To soon honeysuckle
1
AccordsW in
Choke the
t
•
ftM1amnus raMartls
Common buckMOm
2 to 3
wraps, he 9 [0 6 ka[ a
a e
whips; kwlrge mMUr
red baneberry
Ribes nosbatir
Diamon s,
1
Aran, dddtaws
was sarzapanga
Sambocus paper,
Red berried elder
I t
I
In revine
GROU LAYER to 0 N height Total Cover: 3
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
6. Wool/
Blana sod e
1 1
L2rex pe clumosta
vends Ivanla sedge
1 2
Ferns and
others
Actaea rubs
red baneberry
Aran, dddtaws
was sarzapanga
+
Ant n m why -mr ina
lady fern
ort,ea Nteaana
Enchanters mgo shade
+
Eu atorium rogospar
White snakeroot
1
Guam, arsome
cleavers
topas aspetlfolla
ountai n rice gross
+
osmomha Clafond
d pun's sweet had
ranhenocissus awn uemna
vvgmia creeper
+
Pnturp fachowach a
Lopsided
Ins- w'-
chokecher,
1
seedlin
ftivyi aathanis
Common buckthorn
2
Seedlings
Samcula dr— lowhow
Maryland black snake too
Vats ripana
wild grape
t
Friends of the Mississippi River 4 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Friends of the Mississippi River 5 Gateway North Open Space NRMP
Figure 13. Scan of the species list for the bluff prairie from the original County
Biological Survey of 9116/1987 by J. C. Alm endinger of the Minnesota UNR.
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.
Smooth Brome
GRASSES
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 Mississippi River Gateway North Open Space NRMP