HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-09 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Packet1
COTTAGE GROVE PARKS, RECREATION AND
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
March 9, 2026
COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 PM
1 Call to Order
2 Roll Call
3 Approval of the Agenda
4 Approval of Minutes
A February 9, 2026
5 Open Forum
6 Presentations
A New Commissioner Introduction
7 Action Items
A CGAA United Soccer Goal Funding Request
B Military Trailhead Master Plan
C Bylaw Review
D Peterson Park Playground
E Still Ponds Park Natural Resources Management Plan
8 Action Updates
A Denzer Park
B CG Trailway Corridor Restoration
C Oltman Park
D Mississippi Dunes Park
E Peterson Park
9 Donations
10 Staff Reports and Materials
A Staff Reports
11 Commission Comments
12 Council Comments
2
A Council Agendas
13 Workshop
14 Adjournment
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 FAX 651-458-2897 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Date: February 9, 2026
12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH
COTTAGE GROVE MN, 55016
COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 P.M
1. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 7:00pm at City Hall
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Adam Larson, Samanthia Crabtree, Justin Olson, Kelly Glasford,
Debra Gustafson, Shane Waterman, Justin Waterman
Members Absent: Susannah Brown
Others Present: Zac Dockter Parks Director, Noah Ranem, Council Member Dave
Clausen
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A motion to approve minutes from November 10, 2025, was made by Commissioner
Crabtree & seconded by Commissioner Gustafson. Minutes Approved.
5. OPEN FORUM
None
6. ACTION ITEMS
A. Ponds Park Natural Resources Management Plan
We acquired Still Ponds Park Property in 2022. It has a beautiful shallow lake area and a
lot of good forest habitat. We have been there clearing the undergrowth, buckthorn
and things of that nature. We did warn the Commission that the pine plantation that
was established there in the 1950’s/1960’s was pretty degraded, with very tall red pines
that are starting to fall over and get diseased. We did invite a staff member from the
Minnesota DNR Forestry Department, multiple people from the Washington County
Conservation District, South Washington County Watershed District, and other arborists
and they all agreed that the plantation needs to go over time. We are trying to take a
phased approach because we realize the visual impact will be considerable. The first
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 FAX 651-458-2897 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
step was to establish the natural resources management plan so we can collectively
show what that area will look like after a full habitat restoration. The plan has been
submitted to the Commission for review. It was completed by the South Washington
County Watershed District staff. It does a good job of laying out the history of the land,
history of the area, what the goals are, what the estimated cost of the restoration will
be, and long-term management. Commissioner Gustafson commented that the plan
had the incorrect population of Cottage Grove at 35,000 and it is closer to 40,000 and
needs to be amended. Commissioner Larson inquired about the total costs listed in the
summary. Zac confirmed that the total cost would be all columns added up collectively
and that the activity phasing page is just more detailed information from the summary
page. Commissioner Olson brought to the Commissions’ attention that the document
states there is a conservation easement in place, however after previous discussion with
Zac and research there is in fact no conservation easement in place on this property and
we should make sure to have that amended. A motion was made to approve the plan
with the two exceptions notes made by Commissioner Olson. Seconded by
Commissioner S. Waterman.
B. Peterson Park Concept Master Plan Review
Peterson Park is an exciting new park development project southwest of Jamaica
Avenue & Military Road. Like Still Ponds Park, this is one of the more significant lakes, in
terms of surface area, in Cottage Grove that we are excited that we were able to obtain
the land all the way around the lake. The Council wrestled a little bit last year about
putting the trail all the way around the lake, but we are working with the developer to
make sure this happens. This will be about a 1-mile loop lake trail. Zac walked through
the design plan with the Commission, looking for feedback on the first draft of this
concept plan. Commissioner Crabtree inquired how many parking spaces there will be.
Zac stated there will be about a dozen right now. Commissioner Crabtree had concern
about that not being enough as we anticipate this to be a heavily trafficked park. She
wanted to know if there is room for additional parking spaces, or what other options
people would have for parking. Zac stated that there will be an opportunity for off-
street parking on the interior neighborhood roads. Zac does not anticipate this to be
high destination park where there are lots of people at one time, but rather people will
come and go, so additional parking spots probably won’t be necessary. Commissioner
Olson stated he was able to drive around a portion of the lake and is really optimistic
about this park. Zac mentioned to the Commission that we will be putting in a small
dock for water access, however there will not be fishing opportunities as the lake is
fairly shallow. Zac mentioned there is also connection to the park from the southwest
corner through Shepard Farm. Commissioner Crabtree asked if there would be rental
opportunities similar to Grey Cloud Island. Zac stated we should have some sort of
paddling launch and then revisit if we do a paddle share. Commissioner Gustafson
received feedback from neighbors regarding the access point down at the southern
point. It looks like the only access point is through the west cul-de-sac. Neighbors
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 FAX 651-458-2897 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
wanted to know if there was any way to have the access point off of Jamaica by the east
cul-de-sac as it would be easier access. Zac stated that there is a trail connection that
goes out of that cul-de-sac and runs up Jamaica. It doesn’t cut back directly into the
park because of some drainage and other issues, but as you get further north you’ll see
there is that opportunity where it loops back into the park. Some of the other feedback
she received was about the future playground. Neighbors would like to see more of a
nature color scheme and have two different areas for older and younger kids. In terms
of restroom and park shelter the feedback was that the solid side of the structure
should have it on the side, not the back. The thought is if is angled right, to make sure it
is more visible from higher traffic area like Jamaica and Ravine Road so there is less
opportunity for graffiti and potential crime. Zac stated that he understands the
concern, but reality is, no matter where you put it, there will be a wall towards Jamaica.
Zac stated we will be putting security lighting and cameras in the area to protect our
assets. The playground design is almost complete, and it is a nature-based theme that
he thinks people will enjoy. Commissioner Gustafson knows this is going to be a phased
approach and there is grant in the packet from the DNR and would want to know if the
start of the project be based on when we get grant funding. Zac stated that the plan to
apply for the DNR Outdoor Recreation grant as well as local DNR Local Trail grant by
March 31st. If we get those grants, we will get notification sometime in June, once the
contracts are complete it would be closer to September so this would most likely be a
spring 2027 construction project. In the meantime, we are working with a developer to
get the trails and park grated and bring topsoil in. Commissioner Larson asked if we are
doing asphalt trails. Zac stated that there are concrete trails around the active area and
the trails themselves will break off into asphalt trails. Commissioner Larson asked if
there was going to be any delineation to show what park property is and what private
property is. Zac stated that we do a pretty good job with managing our property lines
and putting up posts that say park property and addressing encroachment issues by
having property owners removing their stuff they put on park property. We have
already addressed a few encroachment issues on the south side of the lake that had not
been dealt with in the past and got everything cleaned up last year. Commissioner
Larson asked if we would be planning a multi-use trail with bike lanes or would it mostly
be for walking. Zac stated it is scheduled to be an 8-ft trail right now; however, the
grant actually requires a 10-ft trail. We had to be very conscious of the space we had to
work with as we wanted to preserve as many large trees as we could, so we would not
be able to get a 10-ft trail around the entire lake. The trail will be open to bicycling,
rollerblading, walkers, runners, whatever it might be. This will be our third lake loop
trail in the community. A motion to approve the master plan for Peterson Park was mad
by Commissioner Glasford. Seconded by Commissioner S. Waterman.
C. Grant Application Letters of Support
Now that we have approved the master plan concept for Peterson Park, we can move
forward with applying for the grants as previously mentioned. Looking for a motion to
accept a letter of support to use in the grant application process. Commissioner
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 FAX 651-458-2897 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Crabtree asked if the previously discussed 8-ft trail vs 10- ft trail will impact our chance
for this grant. Zac stated that it may, but he did talk to staff and there is a reason for
exception section for things like preserving habitat or not removing large trees. A
motion to approve the letter of support made by Commissioner Crabtree. Seconded by
Commissioner Olson.
D. Public Landscapes Initiative Program
This is something the Commission reviews almost annually. The goal of the program is
to beautify the community and make sure when we remove trees from the community
for development that we are taking fee from that and putting that back into replanting
in the community. This can go towards things like Arbor Day tree planting, mass park
planting, new park development and right of way beautification. One of the things that
was talked about at the strategic planning session with City Council was that we need to
get better on how we strategize right of way beautification. We have over 400 gardens
in Cottage Grove, and a lot of those are in the right of way which is a dangerous spot for
workers to try to maintain those. We had a heart to heart with City Council, and we
want more focus on hardscapes and where we do have softscapes, have more plants,
flowers, and trees and really make those areas pop and make sure we maintain those
the best we can. We would like to use the Public Landscape Initiative and prioritize
these projects such as the Jamaica area landscaping as many of those gardens have
gotten beyond what we can maintain. 80th Street has also given us a lot of challenges
but that will be reconstructed this year so we will clean that area up then. Looking for
support to amend the current plan. Commissioner Crabtree asked if the new
roundabout at 80th & Keats would be part of this. Zac stated yes, we have a landscape
plan that is more hardscape but will have softscaping elements too. Commissioner
Olson asked Zac to explain the maintenance of hardscapes as that was not included in
the report. Zac stated that yes hardscapes are not free of maintenance either and
depending on if you do stamp or colored concrete there is sealing every 5 years or so
that comes with that. We do have trucks that go by that washes these curb areas and
the reality is that the maintenance involved with that compared to trying to get out to
the gardens monthly is much less and much safer. A motion to approve the Public
Landscapes Initiative as recommended made by Commissioner Olson. Seconded by
Commissioner S. Waterman.
E. Commissioner Term Review
One Commissioner has termed out this year; we will take care of that at the end of the
meeting. Just reminding you of your terms. Commissioner S. Waterman and
Commissioner Olson have offered to refill their seat. Commissioner Crabtree has
termed out, so we are actively looking to fill her seat. We also still have a youth seat
open that needs to be filled. No action needed.
F. Facility Use Reclassification of Special Olympics
We have an item regarding our facility use policy in regard to the Blazing Stars Special
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 FAX 651-458-2897 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Olympics program. This is a non-profit group we have been working with for a few
years that uses a few facilities across our community for their league programming. The
challenge we have had is we only have two programs we recognize as priority three
associations: The Cottage Grove Athletic Association & The Eastridge Athletic
Association. So, as we work down our priorities, we can’t move on to our priority four
groups until we’ve got all the field allocations for the priority three groups. As you can
imagine, with the two associations being our two largest users, it takes a long time to
figure out what fields are still available because they have to wait for registration
numbers to come through. Historically those groups have played really well with the
Blazing Stars Special Olympics program, and try to allocate the fields for their programs,
but for us as a city to wait and for them to try to wait for all that allocation to play out it
becomes a little cumbersome. So, with that we would like to make them a priority three
group so we can get their facilities right away alongside CGA & ERAA. We think this
group is a great partner that helps the community and surrounding communities and we
think we should re-prioritize them. Noah Ranem coordinates our facility use and stated
that in the last two years he has worked with these groups and they have been very
open to moving things around. Blazing Stars is still growing, and they are adding some
new fall sports, so getting them a seat at the same table makes our lives a lot easier.
And so, if the Commission is supportive of that, Zac provided an amended facility use
policy that they could consider for action. Commissioner S. Waterman asked if Blazing
Stars would be at the field coordination meeting that is typically held in January. Zac
confirmed yes. Commissioner Olson stated he raised a question with Zac earlier about
our priority three association requirements and in order to do this, we have to waive
conditions one and two, but the rest of them we should still require. So, his suggestion
is we limit our waving to only one and two, which is what Zac did with the revision.
Commissioner Larson motioned to approve, Commission approved.
7. PRESENTATIONS
None
8. ACTION UPDATES
Denzer Park
We started this project in summer 2024 and took a hiatus in 2025 as we reallocated our
budgets for parks. Part of the reason we did this was because development had
stopped in the area and we weren’t building a park in the middle of nowhere. Now that
homes have been built, and apartment complexes are interested again, we think it is
time to service that neighborhood, so we are going to put the project back out to bid.
We already have the playground and shelter on order, so we hope to have that park
constructed this coming year of 2026.
CG Trailway Corridor Restoration
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 FAX 651-458-2897 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
We have had a lot of timber down from diseased, dead, dying, and invasive trees that
have been sitting for a long time because we were not able to burn it last winter. We
were supposed to burn it this winter but have run into challenges, so we just authorized
a contract to have the rest of it hauled away in the next week or two.
Oltman Park
Complete except for the picnic shelter, the playground actually got established in
November. We will let the turf grow in through next year and hope to be able to play
on the fields in 2027.
Mississippi Dunes Park
We have a lot of funding applications out right now. We have four or five applications
for further grant funding for the road leading into the park, the building, the playground,
the fishing pier, and the boat launch. Once we figure out what we will get from the 3M
settlement program, if anything, then we can work back from there and figure out how
we want to piece together this project. Commissioner S. Waterman asked Zac about
how the grants dictate the schedule of how the park is built, and if we did get a majority
or all the grants that we are applying for, would there be scheduling that would be fixed.
Zac stated that there will be grant funding for probably everything in the park except for
the building. Buildings are really hard to get grants for; however, we are applying for a
grant for the building from LCCMR but that will probably be a 50% match.
Peterson Park
Discussed earlier in action items
Still Ponds Park
Focusing on habitat restoration
2025 Park Playground Donation
We donated Belden & Hardwood Park playgrounds to Kids Around the World last spring.
We received word that Hardwood Park will be going to Jamaica & Belden will be going
to Panama, and we look forward to doing this again.
Ice Arena Naming Rights
We talked to the Commission at the last meeting about entering an agreement with
Front Burner Sports, well, that is now happening. They are just starting to develop their
story on why people should invest in the Cottage Grove Ice Arena, so there is a concept
out there but not ready to present to the Commission at this time, but more
information will be presented at the next meeting.
9. DONATIONS
None
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 FAX 651-458-2897 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
10. STAFF REPORTS & MATERIALS
Each division has submitted a report for the Commission to review.
11. COMMISSION COMMENTS
This will be Commissioner Crabtree’s last meeting. She started on the Commission in
2016. During Sam’s time on the Commission, she was a part of many major projects
including the renovation of almost every single park building, expanded Hamlet Park,
acquired 400 acres of park and open space, plus added 35 miles of trails. She helped
guide the East Ravine Park Trail master plan, and saw the openings of Cedarhurst
Meadow Park, Oltman Park, Antlers Ridge, Strawberry Fields, & Glacial Valley Park. We
acquired 1900 feet of shoreline along the Mississippi River for the Mississippi Dunes
project. We added unique recreation activities such as the bike park, paddle share,
kayak rental program, playgrounds, interpretive signage, and trail mapping just to name
a few. Sam helped preserve protect and restore hundreds of acres across the
community, while also renovating existing parks like Arbor Meadows, Hearthside,
Granada & Hamlet and now have plans for the Ice Arena. Sam’s strongest voice was
making dynamic playgrounds. Zac presented Commissioner Crabtree with a Hockey
Mom parking sign.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council Member Clausen asked the Commission for feedback on the Kingston Park
building versus Mississippi Dunes Park and which is more important in terms of funding.
Commissioner Olson stated Kingston Park first & Mississippi Dunes Park second.
Commissioner Larson stated he would be opposite and wants a working park at
Mississippi Dunes before replacing the building at Kingston Park. Commissioner
Glasford stated she would prefer Mississippi Dunes because it’s a cool entity that we
currently don’t have that could draw more people to our community. Commissioner
Crabtree asked what the plans for the building will be and would the building be an
integral part for the usage at Mississippi Dunes or would it be more beneficial to
upgrade Kingston, since that is the biggest park we use in Cottage Grove versus waiting
a little while at Mississippi Dunes. Zac answered that the park would be fully functional
without the building. Commissioner Crabtree ultimately agreed with Commissioner
Olson that Kingston should be done first and then Mississippi Dunes as long as we can
get grant money for the other things to make it functional.
13. WORKSHOP
None
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 FAX 651-458-2897 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
14. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Crabtree. Second by Commissioner J .
Waterman. Meeting adjourned at 8:00pm
To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
From:
Cc:
Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director
Date: February 25, 2026
Subject: Soccer Goal Funding Request
Introduction/Background
The Cottage Grove Athletic Association, via CG United Soccer, is requesting matching funds of up to
$2,500 to purchase new soccer goals. Their funding request is attached to this memo.
The City’s 2026-2030 Capital Improvements Plan includes $10,000 per year for the Commission to
utilize as a “Matching Funds Program” from the Park Improvement Fund. This program allows the
Commission to financially support volunteer groups who are willing to invest into the Parks and
Recreational system. Historically, the majority of matching requests are about $2,500 per project but
have gone higher based on the Commission’s project review and scope of financial need. A journal of
the use of those funds is tabled below.
Park Commission Matching Funds Program Journal
Year Project Group Value
2014 Bike Park Match to $33,000 Grant MN Off Road Cyclists/Bike Park Volunteers $3,000
2017 Dog Park Water Line/Fountain WAG Farms Dog Park $2,500
2017 Hamlet Football/Soccer Scoreboard CGAA $5,000
2019 Grey Cloud Softball Field Fencing CGAA $2,500
2019 Kingston Soccer Nets CGAA $2,500
2020 Bike Park Pump Track Paving MN Off Road Cyclists/Bike Park Volunteers $2,500
2021 Bike Park Jump Line Improvements MN Off Road Cyclists/Bike Park Volunteers $2,500
2021 Woodridge baseball field #1 scoreboard CGAA $5,000
2022 Kingston soccer nets CGAA $2,500
2022 Oakwood Disc Golf Baskets Disc Golf Volunteer Group $2,500
2023 Oakwood Disc Golf Signage Disc Golf Volunteer Group $2,500
2023 Pine Coulee RCA Track RCA Track Volunteer Group $2,500
2023 Bike Park track realignments MN Off Road Cyclists/Bike Park Volunteers $2,500
Action Requested
Receive information and provide staff direction for funding request from the Cottage Grove Athletic
Association.
Cottage Grove United Soccer
February 25, 2026
$2,600, bringing the total project cost to $5,200 for
two sets. In the past, we have partnered successfully with the City on similar purchases,
with the club purchasing one set and the City assisting with another.
$2,500 toward this purchase. Cottage Grove United Soccer will fund the
remaining balance of the project.
To:
From:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Introduction/Background
Staff Recommendation
To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
From:
CC:
Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director
Jim Fohrman, Parks Superintendent
Date: February 26, 2026
Subject: Peterson Park Playground
Introduction/Background
The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Master Plan was approved at the February 2026
meeting. The next phase of the plan is to review the playground design. Staff received a proposal from
Landscape Structures, Inc. that focuses on catering to different age groups and abilities to ensure a
safe, enjoyable and inclusive play environment for all children. Key components include:
1. Age Appropriate Equipment – play features for 2-12 year olds
2. Safety Surfacing – combination engineered wood fiber and poured in place rubber to meet
accessibility and safety needs
3. Play Features – swinging, spinning, climbing, sliding, balancing, social and educational spaces
to meet both physical and cognitive play experiences
4. Natural Features – design compliment natural elements of the park along with a Hosta theme
which gives nod to the Peterson family (which the park is named after) who were known for
there vast gardens and hundreds of varieties of Hostas therein.
Playground design images and relevant information are included with this memo.
Recommendation
Approve Peterson Park playground design.
2026
Qty Item No.Description Price Ext Price
1 111228A Square Tenderdeck $1,474
1 111229A Square Deck Extension $1,403
1 111403N 158"Steel Post For Roof DB $571
1 111403S 118"Steel Post For Roof DB $449
7 111404A 148"Alum Post DB $566
2 111404E 116"Alum Post DB $444
1 111404F 108"Alum Post DB $423
1 115222A Slant Window Panel Above Deck $1,846
5 116244A Pipe Barrier Above Deck $893
1 123336A Double Wave Slide 48"Dk DB $3,876
1 130390A Double Swoosh Slide 72"Dk DB $3,381
1 152907B Deck Link w/Barriers Steel end panels 2 Steps $2,938
1 152907D Deck Link w/Barriers Steel end panels 4 Steps $4,738
1 152911A Curved Transfer Module Right 32"Dk DB $3,402
1 160694A Barrier With Infill Panel $882
1 178710A Hexagon Tenderdeck $4,202
1 185296A 10' PlayOdyssey Tower $39,341
1 185338B 10' Tower TurboTwister w/1 View $10,073
EQUIPMENT INFORMATION & PRICING
PROJECT INFORMATION
State Contract #218091
Peterson Park - 021126 Revision
TBD Jamaica Ave S
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Contract Year:
1 218172A DigiFuse Barrier Panel w/Medallions Above Deck $2,739
1 222709A 10' Tower WhooshWinder Slide $9,160
1 307436A Footprint Balance Beam DB $627
1 345276A Storefront Panel $893
2 345282A Bubble Panel Above Deck $1,214
1 345285A Rain Sound Wheel Panel Above Deck $3,086
1 345286A Chimes Panel Above Deck $2,122
1 345289A Periscope Panel Above Deck $2,331
1 345311A Cliff Climber 48"Dk DB $2,535
1 345312A Loop Ladder 48"Dk DB $1,331
1 345315C Wiggle Ladder 48"Dk DB $1,091
1 362348A HomeBase Square Belt $2,208
1 373205A Zoo Infill Panel $1,102
2 375412B Petal Canopy Curved Post 3 Petal $12,031
1 152179A Saddle Spinner DB 16"Height $1,010
1 168099A Cozy Dome DB $6,339
1 173907A Log Stepper 8"Height DB Only $1,020
2 174018A Belt Seat ProGuard Chains for 8' Beam Height $179
1 176038A Full Bucket Seat ProGuard Chains for 8' Beam Height $500
1 177332A Single Post Swing Frame 8' Beam Height Only DB Only $1,744
1 177333A Single Post Swing Frame Additional Bay 8' Beam Height Only DB Only $1,295
1 177351A $1,219
1 182503C Welcome Sign (LSI Provided) Ages 5-12 years Direct Bury $0
1 252553A Rhapsody Vibra Chime 5 DB $1,494
1 252555A Rhapsody Vibra Chime 3 DB $1,494
1 252557A Rhapsody Vibra Chime 1 DB $1,494
$161,996.00
CUSTOM:
Total Standard Equipment Cost at State Contract Pricing
Page 2 of 3
1 CP010299 72" LEAF CLIMBER DB Includes permalene handholds.$4,427
1 CP017169 $648
2 CP017170 $638
1 CP017171 $633
1 CP031996 72" SUNBEAM CLIMBER W/IVY/VINE PATTERN AND MARBLES At Grade .$3,127
1 CP031995 $1,194
$11,305.00Total Custom Equipment Cost at State Contract Pricing
Page 3 of 3
2-5
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
PE
T
E
R
S
O
N
P
A
R
K
PL
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
02
1
1
2
6
CO
T
T
A
G
E
G
R
O
V
E
,
M
N
SALES
REPRESENTATIVE:
EMILY MALONEY
DESIGNED BY:
AO
2/12/26
1/4" = 1'-0"
FLAGSHIP RECREATION
11123 UPPER 33RD ST N
LAKE ELMO, MN 55082
763-550-7860
FLAGSHIPPLAY.COM
THIS PLAY AREA AND PLAY EQUIPMENT
IS DESIGNED FOR AGE RANGES AS
NOTED ON PLAN.
THIS DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE ADA
ACCESSIBLITY GUIDELINES (ADAAG),
ASSUMING THAT THE ENTIRE USE ZONE
IS COVERED WITH AN ACCESSIBLE
PROTECTIVE SURFACING, UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLAN.
SHEET
LS101
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
a
O
l
s
o
n
\
F
l
a
g
s
h
i
p
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
\
F
l
a
g
s
h
i
p
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
-
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
2
0
2
6
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
\
E
m
i
l
y
\
C
o
t
t
a
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
-
P
e
t
e
r
s
o
n
P
a
r
k
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
2
0
2
6
.
1
1
.
2
6
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
\
C
o
t
t
a
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
_
P
e
t
e
r
s
o
n
0
2
1
1
2
6
R
e
v
.
d
w
g
CONTAINER DETAILS
TOTAL CONTAINER AREA 3692 SF
ASTM SAFETY SURFACING TYPE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER
(ALTERNATE POURED IN PLACE SHOWN)
TOTAL PIP ALT AREA 650 SF
TOTAL EWF AREA 3692 SF
TOTAL PERIMETER 233 LF
EDGING TYPE 6"X12" CONCRETE CURB BY OTHERS
FINISH GRADE TOP OF CURB
MAX FALL HEIGHT (5-12 YR)120"
*SITE PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS:
·OWNER TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 6' WIDE APPROVED SITE
ACCESS PATH TO CONTAINER AND PROTECTION OF THIS
ACCESS ROUTE
·PLAYGROUND PLAN IS BASED ON IDEAL SOIL CONDITIONS. IF
THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SOILS BEING SUITABLE, IT
IS RECOMMEND THAT THE OWNER PROVIDE A GEOTECHNICAL
REPORT OF THE SITE
·MAXIMUM OF 1% GRADE CHANGE ACROSS CONTAINER
·OWNER INSTALLED DRAIN TILE TO BE WITHIN 4 FEET OF
CONTAINER PERIMETER
·IF OWNER INSTALLED BORDER, DRAIN TILE STUB TO BE
PROVIDED
·DRAIN TILE BY FLAGSHIP ACCOUNTS FOR WATER WITHIN THE
CONTAINER AND DOES NOT INCLUDE RUN OFF FROM
SURROUNDING FLATWORK, LANDSCAPING, BUILDINGS, ETC.
·OWNER TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO CONTAINER
·MINIMUM CONTAINER SIZE NEEDED DENOTES THE INSIDE OF
CURB DIMENSION
ALTERNATIVE ENTRANCE RAMP WITHOUT PIP
2-5
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
5-12
years old
PE
T
E
R
S
O
N
P
A
R
K
PL
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
DN
R
P
L
A
N
CO
T
T
A
G
E
G
R
O
V
E
,
M
N
SALES
REPRESENTATIVE:
EMILY MALONEY
DESIGNED BY:
AO
2/12/26
1/4" = 1'-0"
FLAGSHIP RECREATION
11123 UPPER 33RD ST N
LAKE ELMO, MN 55082
763-550-7860
FLAGSHIPPLAY.COM
THIS PLAY AREA AND PLAY EQUIPMENT
IS DESIGNED FOR AGE RANGES AS
NOTED ON PLAN.
THIS DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE ADA
ACCESSIBLITY GUIDELINES (ADAAG),
ASSUMING THAT THE ENTIRE USE ZONE
IS COVERED WITH AN ACCESSIBLE
PROTECTIVE SURFACING, UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLAN.
SHEET
LS101-DRN
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
a
O
l
s
o
n
\
F
l
a
g
s
h
i
p
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
\
F
l
a
g
s
h
i
p
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
-
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
2
0
2
6
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
\
E
m
i
l
y
\
C
o
t
t
a
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
-
P
e
t
e
r
s
o
n
P
a
r
k
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
2
0
2
6
.
1
1
.
2
6
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
\
C
o
t
t
a
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
_
P
e
t
e
r
s
o
n
0
2
1
1
2
6
R
e
v
.
d
w
g
2/13/2026
QTY
Preliminary
Budget
Additions -
Agg Base
Prep
Possible
Addition -
Concrete Curb Notes
Sales Tax - if applicable 0.00 ST3 Certificate of Exemption must be provided by owner.
Mobilization of Installation Crew to Job Site (Trailer Skid Steer Augur, Tools, Mixer, Etc.)
Disposal of packaging material
Excavation (new container) 0 0.00 BY OWNER - Owner to set desired finished grade by excavating 12" below it
Concrete Border Straight (LF)0 0.00 Standard 6" W x 12" D.
Concrete Border Curved (LF)233 13,275.03 BY OWNER - Concrete curb to be compelted by owner. Alternate pricing if prefer added to Playground scope.
Full professional installation by Landscape Structures Certified Installers. Prevailing Labor Rate.
Shade/Tower Rental Equipment Allowance (Lull, Lift, etc.)1,618.59 Rental - Req'd for Shade Fabric, Roofs, etc.
Concrete Flatwork (Sq. Ft.)30 392.35 4" thick concrete
Thickened Edge (LF)0 0.00 Thickened edge used when installing a sidewalk adjacent to playground container. Prevents stone base from washing out.
EWF - Playground Safety Surfacing (CY)160 7,200.90 IPEMA Certified Meets ASTM, ADA & CPSC
EWF Freight 1,002.00
Compacted Aggregate Base (Recycled Concrete or Class 5) (Tons)26 2,108.03 Class 5 Agg w/ Fines or Recycled Concrete, Material & Install 4" - 6" Compacted Required for PIP & Turf Installations
Concrete Base / mound or sloped surface (2" skim coat)0 0.00 Concrete Skim Coating Req'd for PIP/Turf Subbase on Surfaces that are not Flat.
Drain Tile (LF)0 0.00 BY OWNER - Drain stubsrequired inside container if desired.
Poured In Place Rubber Surfacing (Sq. Ft.)650 26,321.27 50/50 mix of Standard Colors/Black Speckled (Designs & Premium Colors Extra)
Security Guard 0.00 24 Hr Site Security req'd during Installation & Cure Time. Cure Times vary with weather and thickness. Defects or damage due to trespass
before sufficient cure time will not be covered by warranty. Flagship Rec not licensed for Security Services.
Site Restoration (Sq.Ft.)0 0.00 BY OWNER - All restoration by Owner. Backfilling required to stabilize border.
LSI - Payment & Performance Bonds 0.00 Included By Request
0.00 Included By Request
Preliminary
Total
Additions
Total Additions Total Total w/ Additions
Peterson Park
Made in the U.S.A. Statement
Project# CottageGrove_Peterson 021126 Rev® 5-12
February 13, 2026
Cottage Grove
playlsi.com
presented by
Total Product
Made in the U.S.A.
99%
Calculation includes standard play products only.
*Our fabrication, rotomolding, concrete, welding and painting
operations in Delano, Minnesota, U.S.A. produce the vast
majority of our standard play components.
Peterson Park
Environmental Statement
Project# CottageGrove_Peterson 021126 Rev
February 13, 2026
Cottage Grove
playlsi.com
presented by
RECYCLED CONTENT OF LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES PRODUCT:
3,423 lbs.
483 lbs.
Rubber 0 lbs.
Plastic 418 lbs.
Total Recycled Content:4,324 lbs.
Total Post Consumer Recycled Content:2,911 lbs.
Total Recycled Content (%):49%
Total Post Consumer Recycled Content (%):33%
Total Weight:8,736 lbs.
Total Recycled Content:Material that has been recovered or diverted from the solid waste stream.
Total Post-Consumer Recycled Content: Material generated by households or commercial, industrial and institutional facilities in
-
Calculations include standard play products only.
Landscape Structures and American Forests are committed to working together to
create a clean and healthy environment for future generations. We are proud to
say that our partnership with American Forests has supported the planting of
more than 35,000 trees per year, on average.
Our corporate partnership with American Forests helps support the planting of
trees in urban spaces where tree cover is limited, contributing to American
Forests' Tree Equity Program. Our support also enables the Resilient Forests
initiative, reviving forests to mitigate the impact of climate change and create a
healthy future for all of us.
Tons of CO2:
Carbon Footprint: A measurement of the effect on the climate in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced in the
To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
From:
CC:
Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director
Jim Fohrman, Parks Superintendent
Date: February 27, 2026
Subject: Still Ponds Natural Resource Management Plan
Introduction/Background
The City acquired Still Ponds Park in 2022 with the intention of preserving it as a natural area.
However, the area has experienced significant degradation of the plant and tree communities due to a
lack of natural or cultivated disturbance and overall plant management, Staff has collaborated with
South Washington Watershed District and Washington Conservation District to develop a natural
resources management plan.
The park includes 42.5 acres of woodland, wetland and open water features. The management plan
aims to analyze current vegetation, soil conditions and topography to develop a strategic approach to
long-term land stewardship. It further recommends restorative efforts to improve overall environmental
value of the site. Restoration recommendations are broken down into three units (as mapped in the
report). Summary findings and recommendations for the units is below.
Units 1 and 3 – These woodland areas surround the lake and were likely Oak Savanna pre-European
settlement. There is a good population of native trees such as Oaks, Maples, Hackberry, Basswood,
Cherry, Chokecherry, Dogwoods and more. However, regeneration is minimal given the dense
underlayer. There is a heavy population of dead and dying Ash that has been decimated by Emerald
Ash Borer. These will need to be eradicated as a first step in restoration activities. Additionally, the
sub-canopy of both units are a dense thicket of Buckthorn, Prickly Ash and other invasive species that
will need clearing and treatment to support the health of the native tree population. As invasive species
are eradicated, the sub-canopy should be planted with a combination of native woodland grasses, forbs
and shrubbery (Hazelnut, Gooseberry, Chokecherry, etc.). Fire tolerant species should be chosen.
Unit 2 – This area has undergone several transitions since European Settlement. Originally a
combination of Oak Savanna and prairie, it was likely cultivated for agriculture purposes for several
decades. In the 1950’s, the landowner transitioned the unit into a Red Pine plantation. These Pines
are now in severe decline given their age and the lack of thinning to allow space for growth. The
subcanopy is infested with invasive species. The plan suggests removing the Pine plantation (almost in
its entirety) and transitioning to a Southern Dry Mesic Oak Woodland. This biome is a combination of
native deciduous trees (such as Oak, Maple, Hackberry) with open barrens of prairie and woodland
cover. This unit is perhaps the most challenging site in terms of public perception; the removal of the
Pine plantation will significantly impact the park view from neighboring homes.
Summary
Native habitat restoration aims for long-term enhancement of plant biodiversity and improved
ecosystems by stabilizing soil, filtering groundwater, improving water retention, increasing pollination,
fostering native animal/bird/reptile/insect habitat and beautifying the landscape. Further, a diverse
native habitat is able to provide natural resistance to wildfires, climate change and natural disasters.
Recommendation
NATURAL
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
Still Ponds
Washington Conservation District
2025
1
Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 4
General City Background and Context .............................................................................................................. 4
Location ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
History ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Overall Goal for Habitat Restoration and Enhancement .............................................................................. 7
Still Ponds.......................................................................................................................................................... 8
General Location ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Background and Site History ......................................................................................................................... 9
Pre-Settlement Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 9
Post-settlement land use ........................................................................................................................ 10
Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Topography ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Geology and Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 14
Water Features ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment ....................................................................................... 17
Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) ............................................................................ 17
Minnesota Native Plant Community Classification and Goals ................................................................. 18
Restoration and Enhancement of Still Ponds ................................................................................................. 20
Management Unit 1 .................................................................................................................................... 22
General Description and Current Conditions ......................................................................................... 22
Desired Future Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 22
Management Unit Goals ......................................................................................................................... 24
Management Unit Activities ................................................................................................................... 24
Management Unit 2 .................................................................................................................................... 26
General Description and Current Conditions ......................................................................................... 26
Desired Future Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 26
Management Unit Goals ......................................................................................................................... 27
Management Unit Activities ................................................................................................................... 28
2
Management Unit 3 .................................................................................................................................... 29
General Description and Current Conditions ......................................................................................... 29
Desired Future Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 29
Management Unit Goals ......................................................................................................................... 30
Management Unit Activities ................................................................................................................... 30
Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary ...................................................................... 32
Restoration Management Activity Phasing .................................................................................................... 32
Management Activities ................................................................................................................................... 36
Climate Resiliency ....................................................................................................................................... 36
Invasive Species Management .................................................................................................................... 38
Prevention .............................................................................................................................................. 38
Integrated Pest Management ................................................................................................................. 38
Public disturbance ...................................................................................................................................... 39
Enhancement .............................................................................................................................................. 40
Interseeding ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Prairie Restoration .................................................................................................................................. 40
Restoring Ecosystem Processes .................................................................................................................. 42
Prescribed burning .................................................................................................................................. 42
Grazing .................................................................................................................................................... 42
Haying ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
Tree Removal .............................................................................................................................................. 44
Record-keeping ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Surveying ................................................................................................................................................ 44
Monitoring .............................................................................................................................................. 44
Adaptive Management ............................................................................................................................... 45
Information Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 46
List of Tables
Table 1. 4-year management cost projections by Management Unit and Sub Unit ...................................... 32
Table 2. Restoration Activities and cost estimate ........................................................................................... 35
3
List of Figures
Figure 1. The parks of open spaces in the City of Cottage Grove.. ................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Historical Image of Old Cottage Grove. .............................................................................................. 6
Figure 3. Orrin Thompson Developments that led to the rapid development of Cottage Grove in the 1950’s 6
Figure 4. Regional view of Still Ponds Park in Cottage Grove. .......................................................................... 8
Figure 5.Pre-European settlement vegetation at Still Ponds. ........................................................................... 9
Figure 6. Aerial Image 1937 ............................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7. Aerial Image 1964 ............................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 8.Table and soil map for Still Ponds ..................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9. The topography at Still Ponds. ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 10. Geological subsections surrounding Still Ponds. ............................................................................ 15
Figure 11. Water features at Still Ponds. ........................................................................................................ 16
Figure 12. Land cover mapping at Still Ponds. ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 13.Scripus Validis at Still Ponds. ........................................................................................................... 19
Figure 14. Locations of scattered trees identified in 1937 and 1964 aerial photography on 2022 aerial
imagery. ........................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 15. Wet meadow on NW side of Still Ponds. ....................................................................................... 25
4
Executive Summary
Project Description
The City of Cottage Grove aims to enhance the quality of its existing vegetation through comprehensive
ecological restoration and management strategies. Native plant communities provide essential ecological
functions, including pollinator and wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, water filtration, flood regulation,
and soil development and enrichment. However, increased urban development and land use intensity has
significantly diminished these native habitats. The Washington Conservation District has assessed the
project site in order to offer insights into the current plant community composition and structure and to
develop targeted restoration strategies. Restoration of Still Ponds will enhance pollinator foraging
resources, improve water quality, reduce erosion, support pollutant uptake from urban runoff, increase
climate resilience, and contribute to the aesthetic and recreation use of this public outdoor space.
The project area encompasses 42.5 acres consisting of cultivated pine stands, woodland, stormwater basins
with upland buffers, wet meadows, and open water features. This management plan utilized the current
vegetation, soil conditions, and topography to offer strategic guidance on woody invasive species control,
hazard tree removal, enhancement of the understory and ground layers, management of invasive
herbaceous species, and shoreline improvements throughout all project units. The recommendations
outlined for each management unit represent the initial stage in establishing a robust, long-term approach
to land stewardship.
General City Background and Context
Location
The City Cottage Grove is located 10 miles southeast of Saint Paul in Washington County, positioned on the
east bank of the Mississippi River, just north of its confluence with the St. Croix River. Along with adjacent
suburbs, Cottage Grove comprises the southeastern segment of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan
area. The city features a mix of residential, agricultural, and commercial land uses with a population
exceeding 38,000.
Cottage Grove maintains an extensive park system, encompassing nearly 2,000 acres of designated
parkland and open space across its jurisdiction. These resources are intended to support policies,
programs, and facilities that foster active living—enhancing the health, well-being, education, and vitality
of the community. Park amenities also include Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park, which is owned and
managed by Washington County Parks. The city’s natural areas act as important corridors for wildlife
movement and provide protection for valuable natural resources such as habitats, wetlands, woodlands,
and drainage ways.
Cottage Grove lies within the ecological subsection of St. Paul Baldwin Plains of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest
Province which consists of upland terrain between the valleys of the Mississippi and St. Croix River. The city
is situated within the southwest corner of the South Washington Watershed District. Located in a
developing residential district, Still Ponds plays a critical role in influencing surface water dynamics and
5
supporting ecosystems with varying levels of functionality. Its utilization by the local community further
highlights the importance of ecological restoration and sustained management initiatives.
Figure 1. The parks of open spaces in the City of Cottage Grove. Still Ponds is located in the NW corner of Cottage Grove.
History
Cottage Grove, was originally inhabited by the Dakota and Ojibwe Native American tribes who were
stewards of the vast prairie landscape, interspersed with oak groves. Activities such as fishing, mound
building, and wild rice harvesting were an essential part of the indigenous cultures of this region. The only
known indigenous settlement in Washington County was a village called Grey Cloud Island, just west of
Cottage Grove, established by Chief Medicine Bottle in 1830. However, the Treaties of 1837 led to the
ceding of Dakota land east of the Mississippi, resulting in their forced relocation of the settlement.
The first European settlers arrived in 1843, and the township was organized in 1858. The arrival of the
railroad in the late 1800s significantly increased trade and economic growth. Cottage Grove's proximity to
6
the Mississippi River also contributed to its economic
prosperity, making it an important transportation hub. The
city's population grew from about 100 residents in the
1950s to over 41,000 today. Cottage Grove continues to
thrive as a suburban community with a strong sense of
community and a variety of economic opportunities.
The first European settlers arrived in Cottage Grove in
1843 from New England, bringing Greek Revival
architecture and establishing a government style that
earned the township the nickname “New England of the
West.” Most were grain farmers who prospered due to
fertile soil and access to markets via the Mississippi River
and wagon roads.
In 1851, a road linked Grey Cloud Island to Stillwater via
Old Cottage Grove and Afton. The Military Road, authorized in 1850, passed through the area from Point
Douglas to Fort Ripley by way of St. Paul. Hastings Avenue connected the township with St. Paul until it was
replaced by Highway 61 in the 1940s. The St. Paul & Chicago Railroad built a line through the township in
1869, establishing the Langdon station (present-day Cottage Grove), which quickly became a thriving trade
center with businesses, a school, and a Catholic church built in 1873.
The 1870s saw many German immigrants arrive, leading to increased farming and a shift toward dairy
production. By 1875, Langdon had one of Minnesota’s first creameries, marking the rise of the local dairy
industry.
Key routes like the Military Road and
Hastings Avenue connected Cottage Grove
with surrounding towns, enhancing its
role as a transportation hub. In 1869, the
St. Paul & Chicago Railroad expanded
through the township, with Langdon (now
Cottage Grove) developing rapidly as a
trade and shipping center.
At the turn of the twentieth century, the
township—including its two rural villages,
Langdon and Old Cottage Grove—had an
estimated population of 100. For over one
hundred years, Cottage Grove retained its
rural character. However, the
development of Thompson Grove in the
1950s, a community of ranch-style homes
initiated by real estate developer Orrin
Thompson, marked the onset of suburban
Figure 3. Orrin Thompson Developments that led to the rapid development
of Cottage Grove in the 1950’s
Figure 2. Historical Image of Old Cottage Grove.
7
expansion in the area. Thompson subsequently constructed more than half of the homes in Cottage Grove.
The population increased significantly, rising from 833 residents in 1950 to over 4,800 by 1960, and
exceeding 13,400 by 1970. By the year 2000, Cottage Grove had become one of Minnesota’s fastest-
growing communities with approximately 30,000 residents.
Due to extensive conversion of pre-European settlement land first to agriculture and subsequently to
development, only a limited number of intact vegetation communities currently remain in Cottage Grove.
However, the city still maintains several key natural resources including ponds, wetlands, woodlands,
prairie, savanna, and the Mississippi River outflow. Many parks within the city also have preserved natural
areas alongside recreational facilities. The city also promotes ecologically responsible development and
establishment of greenspace within new residential and commercial developments.
Overall Goal for Habitat Restoration and Enhancement
Due to substantial changes in land use and fragmentation of the landscape, reconstructing native plant
communities based solely on pre-settlement vegetation data may not be feasible. As a result, this plan
references pre-settlement conditions as one data point and incorporates current vegetation, land use,
soils, topography, future climate conditions and existing limitations to recommend a plant community that
is ecologically functional, supports habitat, and maintains resilience over time.
Historical data on plant communities prior to European settlement indicates that Still Ponds was
characterized by oak openings and barrens, commonly known as oak savanna. Given the complexities
inherent to restoration within highly disturbed metropolitan areas, the primary goals for habitat
restoration emphasize the establishment of diverse, climate-resilient plant communities and the creation
of natural spaces that are both equitable and accessible to the public. Restoration objectives for each
management unit are tailored to reflect specific land use influences and are detailed in their respective
sections below.
8
Still Ponds
General Location
Still Ponds is a 42.5-acre park in Cottage Grove, MN, located east of Highway 61 and north of 65th Street.
The park features trails linking neighborhoods through woodlands, wetlands, stormwater basins, and pine
trees. The area now known as Still Ponds was previously used for agricultural purposes before becoming a
community natural area. Over the last 35 years, the land cover has undergone notable changes.
Figure 4. Regional view of Still Ponds Park in Cottage Grove.
9
Background and Site History
Pre-Settlement Vegetation
Surveyors with the General Land Office recorded the size, species, and distribution of trees as well as
general descriptions of the physical geography of the landscape they traversed throughout 1848-1907.
Francis J. Marschner interpreted these notes to create a detailed map depicting how Minnesota looked at
the time of European settlement.
Still Ponds falls within the St. Paul Baldwins Plains and Moraines ecoregion. The pre-settlement vegetation
surrounding Still Ponds consisted of oak openings and barrens or savanna and was likely dispersed with a
complex mosaic of wet prairie and oak savanna. Oak openings and barrens consisted predominantly of
scattered trees and groves of oaks in scrubby form with patches of open prairie and areas of brush and
thickets. Present day communities in this category include oak savannas and woodlands.
Figure 5.Pre-European settlement vegetation at Still Ponds. Figure 5. Pre-European settlement vegetation.
10
Post-settlement land use
Aerial photos from 1937 to 2024 show Still Ponds and the surrounding landscape shifting from agricultural
to residential land use. Also, during this time, previous landowners planted approximately 8-acres of red pine
trees in the former row-crop fields. Pine planting began sometime after 1964.
Figure 6. Aerial Image 1937 Figure 7. Aerial Image 1964
11
Soils
According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, eleven soil classifications occur within Still Ponds. Overall soil
throughout Still Ponds tends to be a composition of silt loam and considered prime farmland. With one
area of ponded soils. Major soil types include Santiago silt loam, Freeon silt loam, and Richwood silt loam,
each comprising 90% of their respective map units. Minor components contribute 10% to the map units,
with specific soil types like Kingsley and Freeon. The elevation for these soils’ ranges from 670 to 1,950
feet, with mean annual precipitation between 28 to 36 inches. Special Line Features (SLP) are delineated
on the soils map; these are narrow bands of contrasting soil areas that are too small to map but significant
enough to influence land use and management due to slope or contrasting soil texture.
Soil textures range from silt loam to sandy loam, reflecting differences in drainage and nutrient retention.
Dry, sandy upland soils are deep and drain quickly, while loamy upland soils offer moderate drainage and
higher pH and water capacity than sandy soils. Loamy lowland soils retain moisture but do not stay
saturated, and mucky swamp soils, rich in decomposed organic matter, have poor drainage and are
permanently wet and acidic. A summary of soil classifications follows, with details in Appendix A.
12
Figure 8.Table and soil map for Still Ponds
13
Topography
The topography of Still Ponds consists of gently rolling slopes with natural and stormwater basins in low-
lying areas. Most of the terrain is flat to relatively flat with slopes ranging from 2-6% with some areas
ranging from 6-15% slopes. Aspects face all cardinal directions but most of the steeper slopes have an
aspect of east, southeast, or south.
Figure 9. The topography at Still Ponds.
14
Geology and Hydrology
Still Ponds is located within the ecological subsection of St. Paul Baldwin Plains in the Eastern Broadleaf
Forest Province. The northern boundary of this subsection is defined by a Superior Lobe end moraine
complex known as the St. Croix Moraine. To the west, terraces linked to the Mississippi River mark the
separation from the Anoka Sand Plain subsection. The southern boundary aligns with the southern edge
of the Rosemount Outwash Plain. This subsection is small in size and extends into Wisconsin. It features
a large moraine and areas of outwash plain, although it is lower in elevation compared to other regions
in the state. The subsection includes part of the seven-county metropolitan area and experiences
effects from urban development.
The region surrounding Still Ponds contains Paleozoic bedrock overlying a thick sequence of
Mesoproterozoic rocks that formed about 1,100 million years ago and are associated with the
Midcontinent Rift. The Paleozoic rocks in this area consist of relatively thin, widespread layers of
sandstone, shale, and carbonate deposits formed in shallow seas approximately 500 to 450 million years
ago. Throughout Washington County, bedrock units are slightly tilted (less than 1°) to the southwest,
toward the central Twin Cities metropolitan area, which is part of what is identified as the Twin Cities
basin. Still Ponds straddles three geological subsections: Opg and Os and Ops.
• Opg: Platteville and Glenwood formations (upper Ordovician) – the Platteville formation primarily
consists of tan to gray, fossiliferous limestone and dolostone. This is the dominant uppermost
bedrock that spans across a large extent of the southwestern part of the county. The underlying
Glenwood Formation is predominantly a green-gray sandy shale. The combined thickness of these
formations if approximately 30-35 ft (9-11 m).
• OS: St. Peter Sandstone (Middle to lower Ordovician) – The uppermost formation is primarily a
white to tan, fine- to medium-grained, quartzose sandstone. Glacial sediments are thin throughout
the southern half of the county, exposing patchy outcrops of this formation adjacent to Season’s
Park. Bedding and structures are typically absent. The lowermost section of this formation,
referred to as the Pigs Eye Member, consists of white to gray feldspathic shale and siltstone
interlayered with coarser sandstone. While the Pigs Eye Member is not exposed anywhere
throughout Washington county, the basal contact of this formation with the underlying Shakopee
Formation (Ops) has significant erosional unconformity. This buried erosional surface separates
these two rock formations indicates that sediment depositional is not continuous.
15
• OPS: Shakopee Formation (Lower Ordovician)—A heterolithic unit composed mainly of light
brown, thin- to medium-bedded dolostone, sandy dolostone, sandstone, and shale. It contains
oolites, intraclasts, fossilized microbial mounds, chert nodules, quartz sandstone, and green-gray
shale partings. Thickness of the Shakopee Formation beneath the St. Peter Sandstone is quite
variable within the area of the Hudson–Afton horst, ranging from almost absent to nearly 200 feet
(61 meters) thick. It appears to be thickest in the most southeast part of the county, east of the
Hastings fault, where it is nearly 200 feet (61 meters) thick. On the opposite side of the horst, on
the west side of the Cottage Grove fault, it reaches thicknesses of 115 feet (35 meters) and
appears to progressively thin towards the northwest. Based on a limited amount of drill cuttings
and geophysical data within the Hudson–Afton horst, it appears that the Shakopee Formation
thins to less than 50 feet (15 meters) and may even be absent beneath the St. Peter Sandstone at
several locations.
Figure 10. Geological subsections surrounding Still Ponds.
Still Ponds
16
Water Features
The soil structure indicates that Still Ponds contains a mosaic of soil conditions. Soil moisture is an
estimation of the fluctuating water content in soils and greatly influences vegetation types, physical
properties of soils, and chemical interactions and transport. Still Ponds can generally be classified as having
moderate to high infiltration rate as they consist of mainly hydrologic soil group B, with some A and C soils
and combinations of C/D and B/D. Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimations of runoff potential and
consider the rate at which water infiltration occurs. Approximately 15.2% of Still Ponds soils are classified
as ponded, having slow or very slow infiltration rate, particularly lowland areas surrounding open water.
Although flooding frequency is minimal in this area, occasional to frequent ponding occurs in soil section
1055 (Aquolls and Histosols). Ponding is defined as standing water in a closed depression. The aerial photos
suggest that open water in the ponds was either rare, or was not present. This increased ponding frequency is likely
due to the inflow source from residential development in combination with low infiltration rate of the soil
surrounding this area. Ponding occurs at a depth of 80 inches. Still Ponds has three freshwater emergent
wetlands and two freshwater ponds. There are also three stormwater detention basins on the south ends
of the property.
Figure 11. Water features at Still Ponds.
17
Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment
Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)
The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) maps land cover based on historical plant
community inventories and aerial photos from the 1990s. Because MLCCS relies on older data and past
technology, it may not reflect recent land use changes, leading to differences between mapped and
current vegetation. More precise descriptions of current vegetation are provided in the following
Management Units Vegetation section. The MLCCS survey identified six different land cover types within
Still Ponds, shown below in Figure 15. Most of the site is mapped as oak forest dry subtype, cattail marsh,
and cultivated coniferous trees. The former surrounding agricultural fields have been converted to
residential housing.
Figure 12. Land cover mapping at Still Ponds.
18
Minnesota Native Plant Community Classification and Goals
Similar to MLCCS mapping, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource’s Native Plant Community
Classification relies on analysis of comprehensive field data collected during the 1990s, 2000s, and
considers key environmental variables such as azimuth, soil composition, and hydrology. In contrast to
MLCCS, this system employs a hierarchical framework, organizing vegetation according to broad,
landscape-scale ecological systems and incorporating ecological processes as a guiding principle. Native
plant community types are identified based on dominant canopy species, substrate variations, and
detailed environmental factors such as moisture and nutrient availability. Subtypes reflect more nuanced
differences in canopy structure, substrates, or additional environmental variables. Native plant
community classifications are often used to describe current or desired vegetation and provide guidance
for the goals and objectives of stewardship activities. More Detailed descriptions of each plant
community can be found in Appendix B.
Southern Dry-Mesic Oak (Maple) Woodland (FDs37)
These dry-mesic forests are found throughout the Eastern Broadleaf Forest in the transition between the
prairies which frequently burned in the southwest and the mesic hardwoods which rarely burned. Oak
woodland was probably one of the most extensive community types in Minnesota, comprising much of
the vegetation described as oak barrens, brushland, and thickets by the early surveyors. Often found on
sand and sand-gravel soils associated with moraines, these historically occurred where there were
firebreaks in fire-prone regions. The Canopy of this community is interrupted to continuous (50-100%) with
dominant canopy species are either bur oak or northern pin oak, with quaking aspen often present.
Hazelnuts, chokecherry, gray dogwood, and raspberries are common to abundant in the understory.
Historically, disturbance in the form of fire affected these communities about every 10 years
Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest (MHs39) and Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHs49)
Mesic hardwood forests are present throughout the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province in upland areas
where wildfires are less common and soils have greater water retention. The canopy cover is mostly
continuous from 50-100% and dominated sugar maple with basswood, northern red oak and occasionally
red and American elm. Ironwood, sugar maple, basswood and Bitternut Hickory are present in the
subcanopy. The shrub layer is patchy to interrupted with tree saplings, chokecherry, and gooseberry. The
ground-layer varies from patchy to continuous with Virginia waterleaf, bloodroot, wild leek, blue cohosh,
early meadow rue and Spring ephemerals. Wet-mesic hardwood forests MHs49 overlap with the MHs39
communities and are present in areas protected from wildfires and have high water tables. Basswood,
Black ash, Sugar maple green ash, hackberry and Boxelder are common in the canopy and subcanopy. The
shrub layer and ground layer are similar with waterleaf and wood nettle are often common and abundant
Northern Wet Meadow/Carr (WMn82)
Wet Meadow/Carr communities are present throughout Minnesota, and are common in wetland basins,
and along streams and shorelines. Occurrences of Wet Meadows along stream courses or adjacent to
lakes often have fairly constant water levels relative to Wet Meadows in depressions or basins. These
communities occur on wet mineral soil, muck, or shallow peat where standing water is present in the
spring and after heavy rains. However, the water table is generally beneath the surface of the soil for
19
most of the growing season. The Northern Wet Meadow/Carr is composed of dense, closed stands of
sedges such as lake sedge, tussock sedge, beaked sedge, and grasses such as bluejoint. Forb cover is
variable with species such as tufted loosestrife, marsh bellflower, and marsh skullcap. Shrub cover varies
depending on the subtype; the Willow – Dogwood Shrub Swamp (WMn82a) typically has shrub cover
greater than 25% with species such as willows (Salix spp.), red-osier dogwood, and speckled alder. This
subtype tends to occur on drier wet meadow sites, or when the water-table has been lowered by drought
or ditching
Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh (MRn93) and
Open Water
The marsh communities are common throughout
the region in wetland basins or along sheltered
lakeshores and streams. These are forb- and
graminoid-dominated wetland communities that
have standing water for most of the growing season.
The water level is typically stable but can vary in
marshes that are rooted into floating mats.
Nutrients tend to be readily available, especially
following a drawdown in the water level providing
organic matter an opportunity to oxidize. The
Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh (MRn83) is typically
dominated by cattails with other forbs such as
broad-leaved arrowhead and marsh skullcap.
Graminoid cover is variable with lake sedge (Carex
lacustris) and bristly sedge (Carex comosa) often
present. The Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh
(MRn93) tends to be dominated by bulrushes
(Scirpus validis, S. fluviatilis), and submergent
aquatics. Floating-leaved and submergent aquatic
plants are limited in cover with species like
duckweeds (Lemna spp.), water lily (Nymphaea
spp.), and pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.)
Figure 13.Scripus Validis at Still Ponds.
20
Restoration and Enhancement of Still Ponds
To establish management unit objectives based on existing vegetation structure, vegetation surveys were
conducted during the spring and summer of 2025. These surveys documented the dominant species in
canopy, sub-canopy, and ground layers. Findings were compared with historical imagery and prior
vegetative surveys to assess current vegetation and to identify the most appropriate native plant
community goals for the site, where appropriate.
The park’s location within an established metropolitan area result in varying extents of habitat
modification, the presence of invasive species, alterations in hydrology, and diminished frequency of
natural disturbance regimes that are essential to native ecosystems. These factors, combined with recent
intensification of land use in residential development and stormwater infrastructure, have led to notable
changes in vegetation that diverge from those described in Native Plant Communities (NPCs). Restoration
planning should address historical, current, and potential future environmental conditions. Consequently,
not all management units are assigned an NPC target, and some areas may be better suited to alternative
management objectives that still provide ecological functions and recreational opportunities.
Management activities to achieve desired plant community goals are detailed within each management
unit and more thoroughly described in the Management Activity section.
This section provides restoration and management recommendations based on the desired Native Plant
Communities and composition (referred to as Management Units), as well as recommendations for
management activities that are considered priorities (Management Priorities). The following section
(Management Activities) provides an overview of the implementation of specific management activities
that are recommended. Management units have been identified based on the current vegetation and
land cover types. The management units are labeled on maps with associated plant community goals
including NPC’s where applicable. A description of the current conditions of each unit is provided in
addition to desired conditions. Desired conditions range from high quality native plant communities as
described in the Field Guide to Native Plant Communities to reconstructed urban ecosystems. The
following summary of current conditions reflects the dominant and notable species identified throughout
Spring and Summer 2025 at Still Ponds and does not reflect a comprehensive survey of all species within
the project site.
21
Figure 13. Management units and target plant communities at Still Ponds.
22
Management Unit 1
General Description and Current Conditions
Management Unit 1 consists of 11.4 acres of open water and wetlands and 8.5 acres of degraded oak
woodlands. Based on the aerial imagery, the wetland basins have varied hydrologically with period of
open water in present times but historic drawdowns that allowed the area to be farmed. The soils are the
Otter silt loam and ponded aquasolls. Currently the open water is surrounded by wetlands that include a
mosaic of wet meadow and marsh vegetation with generally high diversity and intact native species.
Species such as tussock sedge, lake sedge, woolgrass, waterdock, marsh fern, touch-me-not, Joe pye
weed, and sensitive fern are present. However, numerous stands of dense reed canary grass as well as
scattered patches are present. Some patches of purple loosestrife and narrow leaf cattail also occur on
the shoreline.
The dry-mesic oak woodland is a fire-dependent plant community that has developed on upland soils on
the ridges that surround the wetland basins. Soils are silt loams (Antigo, Brill, Crystal, Freer and Santiago)
with relatively shallow slopes (2-6%). The woodland has a mix of canopy species including large bur oak
trees, red oak, pin oak, red maple, aspen, basswood, and black cherry. Much shrub layer in the uplands in
this unit is dominated by common and glossy buckthorn, a few individuals of Tartarian honeysuckle, and
native species such as prickly ash, prickly gooseberry, red raspberry, and red-berried elder. The
herbaceous layer included species such as Pennsylvania sedge, graceful sedge, pointed-leaf tick trefoil,
Canada mayflower, wild geranium, lady fern, Virginia creeper, wild grape, and jack-in-the-pulpit. Non-
native herbaceous species also included fescue, Canada thistle, garlic mustard, dame’s rocket, burdock,
and bird’s foot trefoil.
Desired Future Conditions
A target condition has been described for each of the management areas. The target condition is a
description of a healthy plant community based on the MNDNR Native Plant Community description.
Recommended restoration and management activities are designed to guide the existing community
towards a plant community that resembles the target condition described. The target condition should be
considered a long-term goal that will be achieved incrementally over time with sustained management
effort. The desired future conditions for Unit 1 include:
23
• Reconstructed Southern Dry-Mesic Oak (Maple) Woodland (FDs37) Native Plant Community.
Canopy cover should be interrupted to continuous (50–100%). Bur oak and northern pin oak
should continue to be the most common tree species. Northern red oak, white oak, and red
maple should also be maintained.
• Enhanced Northern Wet Meadow/Carr (WMn82) and Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh
(MRn93) Native Plant Communities.
• Restored habitat to provide provisions for humans and wildlife, such as the production of food,
water, and shelter.
• Removed woody and herbaceous non-indigenous species to prevent continued habitat
degradation. The shrub layer should be patchy with 25-50% cover by native shrub species typical
of an FDs37 NPC. Dense non-native invasive shrub cover should be <5%.
• Increased diversity with additional ecologically appropriate trees, shrubs, grasses, and
wildflowers. The herbaceous layer should be continuous up to 100% cover such that it is sufficient
to carry periodic prescribed surface fires along with oak leaf litter.
• Climate resilient woodlands and wetlands that can withstand environmental changes in an urban
environment.
Figure 14. Locations of scattered trees identified in 1937 and 1964 aerial photography on 2022 aerial imagery.
24
Priority Level: High
Management Unit Goals
• Unit 1 was likely an oak openings and barrens, also referred to as oak savanna, historically. The
1937 aerial photos and map (Figure 18) show the locations of the original oaks found on site
include scattered trees within the existing woodland. Currently the plant composition more
closely resembles a southern dry-mesic oak (maple) woodland (FDs37) with a canopy of bur oak,
pin oak, and maple and sub-canopy of cherry, chokecherry, dogwoods, and prickly ash. Long term
management will need to address the ash trees that have died due to the Emerald Ash Borer; the
density of buckthorn present in the subcanopy; and the die off of large canopy trees from
construction disturbance. The uplands in Unit 1 need the re-establishment of a natural
disturbance regime to control extensive overgrowth by non-native invasive shrubs such as
buckthorn and to promote a diverse ground cover by native herbaceous species. Native tree
species such as red maple, black cherry, hackberry, and basswood that would typically be
susceptible to fire have been allowed to regenerate. Unfortunately, this recruitment is at the
expense of oak regeneration and replacement. Periodic surface fires (every 10 years or so) and
woody invasive shrub control will support better oak regeneration and native plant diversity.
Management Unit Activities
To maintain and enhance the open water and wetland plant communities in addition to the dry-mesic oak
woodland, the main activities should be:
• Remove non-indigenous wetland herbaceous species such as narrow leaf cattail, reed canary
grass, and purple loosestrife.
• Remove non-indigenous woody species such as buckthorn and honeysuckle and ecologically
inappropriate woody species such as prickly ash.
• Remove non-indigenous herbaceous species such as garlic mustard, burdock, fescue, Canada
thistle, garlic mustard, bird’s foot trefoil and dame’s rocket (Appendix C).
• Remove ecologically inappropriate species such as black locust and boxelder and aspen in areas.
Dead ash should be removed where considered hazardous.
• Thin or remove the less desirable trees species around desirable trees, enhancing the health of
the remaining trees and promoting oak regeneration. Species that are fire-intolerant in seedling
and sapling stages, including box elder, birch, black cherry, hackberry, and elm should be thinned
and minimized.
• Interplant with ecologically appropriate tree species from FDs37 (Appendix B).
• Maintain any native shrub species already present at the site including American hazelnut, grey
dogwood, gooseberry, raspberry, and chokecherry.
• Planting a shrub layer of chokecherry, chokeberry, Juneberry, and hazelnuts would provide
provisions for humans and wildlife while diversifying the structure and composition of FDs37.
• Maintain and enhance herbaceous species including the native species currently on site such as
wild geranium, interrupted fern, sedge species, etc.
25
• Prescribed burning should be implemented after tree and shrub removal once the fuel loads will
support the movement of fire through the unit. In the long-term, the implementation of burns
on an approximately 8- to 10 –year cycle restores natural processes such as the cycling of
nutrients and the prevention of (re)establishment of fire-intolerant woody species.
Figure 15. Wet meadow on NW side of Still Ponds.
26
Management Unit 2
General Description and Current Conditions
The cultivated pine stand occurs on uplands with well-drained and moderately well-drained soils
including the Santiago and Freeon series. These soils were developed in loess over sandy till. Topography
is relatively flat in the northern section with slopes less than 6%. The southern section has slopes ranging
from 6-15% with aspects facing east and south. Pre-European settlement vegetation suggests this area
was oak openings and barrens or oak savanna. Prior to 1964, the area appears to have been utilized for
agricultural purposes.
Currently the unit consists of an even-aged stands of 30- to 40-year-old planted red pine. The dominant
canopy species was red pine, with individual white pine and a small stand of Norway spruce in the
northeast corner. Some quaking aspen, eastern red cedar, black cherry and boxelder were also present in
the canopy. The subcanopy and shrub layers were heavily infested with non-native, invasive common
buckthorn including both common and glossy buckthorn. While buckthorn comprised at least 50-75%
cover under the pines, additional shrub cover included gooseberry, prickly ash, black raspberry, and red-
berried elder. The herbaceous layer was generally lacking in areas with the lack of light due to the heavy
buckthorn cover. However, some areas contained a few native herbaceous plants such as lady fern,
Pennsylvania sedge, Virginia creeper, and enchanter’s nightshade as well as numerous ash seedlings.
Garlic mustard, an invasive herbaceous species, was found in scattered patches in the understory.
Desired Future Conditions
• Reconstructed Urban Forest that is compatible and complementary to the surrounding oak
woodland communities in Unit 1. The composition of a Southern Dry-Mesic Pine-Oak Woodland
(FDs27) can be used as a transitional native plant community goal. The canopy cover would be
patchy (25-75%) and dominated by white pine, bur oak, northern pin oak, white oak, paper birch,
quaking aspen, red oak, and basswood.
• Restored habitat to provide provisions for humans and wildlife, such as the production of food,
water, and habitat.
27
• Removed woody and herbaceous non-indigenous species to prevent continued habitat
degradation. The shrub layer should be patchy with 25-50% cover by native shrub species typical
of an FDs27 NPC. Dense non-native invasive shrub cover should be <5%.
• Increased the diversity with additional ecologically appropriate trees, shrubs, grasses, and
wildflowers. The herbaceous layer should be continuous up to 100% cover such that it is sufficient
to compete with woody and herbaceous species and contain species such as sweet cicely,
northern bedstraw, wild geranium, heart-leaved aster, Canada mayflower, bracken fern, and
Pennsylvania sedge. Climate resilient woodland that can withstand environmental changes in an
urban environment.
Priority Level: Moderate
Management Unit Goals
Unit 2 was likely an oak openings and barrens or oak savanna historically. However, it is now mostly a
monoculture of red pine. Overgrowth of invasive shrubs, mostly common and glossy buckthorn, have
impacted the development of a diverse herbaceous ground layer. As is typical of pine plantations from
this era, the even-age stand generally lacks any regeneration. Selective thinning has not occurred, and
many mature trees are weak and susceptible to wind-throw during high winds or storms. Within this
monoculture are pockets of pine experiencing die off and wind throws. In developing management goals
and activities, the site was reviewed the DNR Forester Karl Mueller to assess the health and recovery of
the pine stands. With two consulting DNR Foresters, they provided the recommendations to clearcut the
pine stand and convert it to a native plant community, leaving some pine in the pine enhancement areas
depicted on the map (Figure X). In these areas where thinning the pine is an option, the pine is slightly
larger and spaced out more, intermixed with adjacent hardwoods. The younger pine stand at the
southern end would not be a possibility for thinning as it would result in a stand prone to windthrow.
However, the edge of this pine stand could be retained as there are spruce and hardwoods partially
protecting them from the wind. The designated removal area is 10.8 acres and the thinning area is 1.3
acres.
Ideally, the cultivated pine stand would be removed or thinned where designated on the map and
transition towards a southern dry-mesic pine-oak woodland (FDs27). This would connect to the
surrounding woodland in Management Unit 1 and create a larger tract of contiguous habitat.
Incorporating climate ready woods species (Appendix D) may also be advantageous as it is an urban
reconstructed woodland ideally, timber harvest would utilize the pine logs for lumber or other
marketable wood products. However, it is very unlikely that there would be interest given the lumber
market. The size and quality of the pine is below what is desired, and the size of pine stand is not large
enough to make it financially viable project in this part of the state. If a near clearcut of the pine is
planned, The DNR recommends connecting with: Call Before You Cut — Minnesota Forestry Association; a
program between the MN Forestry Association and the MNDNR. The MFA foresters would have a better
understanding of the local markets and could provide some guidance prior to removal.
28
Management Unit Activities
To maintain sections of enhanced pine stand or to transition to a native plant community with
clearcutting with a long-term goal of connectivity to the existing FDs37 community, the main activities
should be:
• Remove non-indigenous woody and herbaceous species such as buckthorn, and amur maple.
• Remove ecologically inappropriate species such as black locust and boxelder.
• Remove non-indigenous herbaceous species such as garlic mustard, burdock, and dame’s rocket
(Appendix C). Thin or remove the planted pine stands, enhancing the health of the remaining
trees and promoting pine and oak regeneration.
• Consider coppicing aspen in the NE section of site or on fringe areas to provide valuable wildlife
habitat.
• Seed and plant herbaceous material and shrubs as a transitional plant community to set the
foundation for future savanna/woodland
• Interplant with ecologically appropriate species from FDs27 (Appendix B) or with ecologically
appropriate species from the University of Minnesota Climate Ready Woods program Managing
woodlands in the Anoka Sand Plain, Big Woods, and St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and Moraines | UMN
Extension. Incorporate southern species as an assisted migration model to further enhance the
resiliency of the unit Region 7: Anoka Sand Plain, Big Woods, St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and
Moraines
• Planting chokecherry, chokeberry, wild plum, and hazelnuts would provide provisions for humans
and wildlife while diversifying the structure and composition of the cultivated pine stands.
29
Management Unit 3
General Description and Current Conditions
Management Unit 3 is a mosaic of constructed stormwater ponds surrounded by upland buffers of both
grassland and woodland. In addition to the open water of the ponds, the soils include mostly silt loams
(Freeon, Otter, Richwood, Waukegan, Crystal Lake, and Antigo) and a small amount of sandy loam
(Mahtomedi). Slopes are largely flat and under 6% with a few west- and south-facing slopes ranging up to
15%. Similar to management unit 1, Unit 3 was likely an oak openings and barrens or oak savanna
historically. The 1937 image and Figure x show the original oaks found on site, some of which remain
today. Currently, the plant composition more closely resembles a southern mesic maple-basswood forest
with canopy trees of bur oak, pin oak, and maple, ash, elm and boxelder and with a subcanopy of maple,
ironwood, and ash saplings. The forest transitions to a wet-mesic hardwood system in lower lying areas
along wetlands. The understory of the mesic hardwoods is dominated by buckthorn, a portion of which
on the east side was forestry mowed in the winter of 2024-25. The buffers are a mainly composed of non-
native cool season grasses including brome, fescue and reed canary grass. Burdock and Canada goldenrod
are the most common forbs present. Some southern mesic prairie species are present with sedge
meadow species such as lake sedge and soft-stemmed bulrush along the water’s edge.
Desired Future Conditions
•Enhanced mesic hardwoods that resemble MHs39 and MHs49 Native plant Communities and will
be resilient moving into the future. Canopy cover should be interrupted to continuous (50-100%)
and dominated by sugar maple, basswood, northern red oak.
•The restoration of habitat to provide provisions for humans and wildlife, such as the production
of food, water, and habitat.
•Restored subcanopy structure in the forest with the removal of woody to prevent continued
habitat degradation. The shrub layer should be rare to interrupted (5-75%) cover by native shrub
species typical of MHs39 such as gooseberry and chokecherry. Dense non-native invasive shrub
cover should be <5%.
30
• Removed herbaceous non-indigenous understory species in the open areas surrounding the
stormwater basins and increased diversity with additional ecologically grasses, sedges, and
wildflowers.
• Climate resilient plant communities that can withstand environmental changes in an urban
environment.
Priority Level: Moderate
Management Unit Goals
This unit has experienced quite a bit of disturbance in the transition from oak savanna prior to European
settlement, through logging and agriculture, and more recently in the construction trails and stormwater
basins. Ash trees in the canopy of the forested areas are experiencing die off from Emerald Ash Borer; the
sub canopy is strongly dominated by buckthorn. There is additional die off of large existing canopy trees
and newly installed trees from construction disturbance. While native plant community goals have been
assigned to this unit, the restoration of the structure and composition of the native plant communities
will be challenging. Efforts in these areas should focus on minimizing the cover of non-indigenous species
and increasing the overall diversity.
Management Unit Activities
• To enhance the southern mesic maple-basswood forest (MHs39) in the wooded areas and
southern mesic prairie (Ups23) and northern bulrush-spikerush marsh (MRn93) along the
stormwater basins, the main activities would be: Continued removal of non-indigenous woody
such as buckthorn, honeysuckle, and amur maple.
• Remove canopy species that would be considered hazardous or ecologically inappropriate
species such as ash, dead oak, black locust, and boxelder.
• Remove non-indigenous herbaceous species such as garlic mustard, burdock, dame’s rocket, and
cool season grasses (Appendix C).
• Interplant the forested areas with ecologically appropriate species from MHs39 or MHs49
(Appendix B) or with ecologically appropriate species from the University of Minnesota Climate
Ready Woods program Managing woodlands in the Anoka Sand Plain, Big Woods, and St. Paul-
Baldwin Plains and Moraines | UMN Extension
• Incorporate southern species in the forested areas as an assisted migration model to further
enhance the resiliency of the unit Region 7: Anoka Sand Plain, Big Woods, St. Paul-Baldwin Plains
and Moraines
• Planting chokecherry, gooseberry, and nannyberry in the shrub layer of the forested areas would
provide provisions for humans and wildlife while diversifying the structure and composition of
the hardwoods.
• Consider prairie and wetland restoration in the open areas surrounding the wetland basins. This
would involve the removal of existing vegetation with site preparation methods such as spraying,
burning, soils disturbance, and seeding. Establishment maintenance would include mowing, spot-
treating and prescribed burning.
31
Figure 16. Stormwater Retention Pond at Still Ponds
32
Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary
Total management costs were based on 4-year management plans. Total 4-year costs for all vegetation management are $693,050.00. Cost
estimation is based on current 2025 market rates, contractor rates from 5 different companies, for a similar project, were averaged to get
cost estimates. Management unit nuances may influence costs totals and should be considered. Continued Enhancement is recommended
beyond the 4 year estimate.
Existing Land Cover Acres Priority Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Management Unit 1 High
Altered non-native Woodland
FDs37 8.5 $112,200 $28,900 $28,900 $17,000
Open Water & Wet Meadow 11.4
Management Unit 2 Moderate
Pine Tree Planting removal areas
FDs37 10.8 $82,400 $32,400 $77,240 $47,000
Pine Tree Planting Thinning and
Enhancement FDs37 1.3 $17,230 $6,240 $6,240 $2,600
Management Unit 3 Moderate
Stormwater Ponds and Buffers
UPs24 8.9 $33,300 $24,400 $23,800 $18,900
Woodland MHs39 or MHs49 6.6 $69,800 $25,000 $25,000 $12,000
Table 1. 4-year management cost projections by Management Unit and Sub Unit
33
Restoration Management Activity Phasing
Total management costs were based on 4-year management plans. Total 4-year costs for all vegetation management are $693,050.00. Cost
estimation is based on current 2025 market rates, contractor rates from 5 different companies, for a similar project, were averaged to get
cost estimates. Management unit nuances may influence costs totals and should be considered.
Existing Land
Cover
land Cover
Goals Recommended Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Notes and Assumptions
Management Unit
1
Altered non-native
Woodland
8.5 Acres FDs37
Invasive Species
Management- Woody $44,200 $5,200/Acre
Canopy thinning of
unhealthy and Ecologically
Inappropriate Trees &
around Save Trees $68,000 $8,000/Acre
Understory Enhancement
seeding and planting $11,900 $11,900 $2,800/Acre
Continued Enhancement $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $2,000/Acres; 2 visits per year.
Open Water &
Wet Meadow
11.4 Acres
Opn92 &
WMn82
Invasive Species
Management- Reed
Canary Grass $5,000 $5,000 2 visits per year
Invasive Species
Management- Purple
Loosestrife Bio control $1,200 $1,200
Vegetation enhancement $4,500 $4,500 $4,500
Management Unit
2
Pine Tree Planting
removal areas
10.8 Acres FDs 39
Tree Removal-Canopy
Removal $82,400 $8,000/Acre
Invasive Species
Management- Herbaceous $21,600 2 visits per year
34
Prairie Restoration- Site
prep $10,800
Prairie Restoration-
seeding $30,240
Establishment- Tree and
Shrub Planting $15,000 $15,000 20 trees/ Acre
Establishment-
Maintenance $20,000 $20,000
Establishment- Tree and
shrub maintenance $12,000 $12,000
Pine Tree Planting
Thinning and
Enhancement
1.3 Acres
Invasive Species
Management- Woody $6,730
Tree Removal- Canopy
thinning of unhealthy and
Ecologically Inappropriate
Trees and save trees $10,500
Enhancement- Understory
seeding and planting $3,640 $3,640
Restoring Ecosystem
processes- Continued
Enhancement $2,600 $2,600 $2,600
Management Unit
3
Stormwater Ponds
and Buffers
8.9 Acres
Invasive Species
Management- Herbaceous $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $10,000
Interseeding $6,000 $6,000
Invasive Species
Management- Reed
Canary Grass $2,400 $2,400 $2,400
Prescribed Burning $8,900 $8,900
35
Woodland
6.6 Acres MHs39/49
Invasive Species
Management- Woody $17,000
Tree Removal- Canopy
thinning of unhealthy and
or Ecologically
Inappropriate Trees and
around save trees $52,800
Enhancement- Understory
seeding and planting $12,000 $12,000
Restoring Ecosystem
processes- Continued
Enhancement $13,000 $13,000 $12,000
Table 2. Restoration Activities and cost estimate
36
Management Activities
The descriptions below are intended to provide the land steward with an introduction and overview of
management activities that could be implemented on the land to help achieve the objectives of the
Conservation Values. These activities are specific to the land at the time this HMP was developed. If
interested in implementing any of these activities, contact the Land Trust for more information or to
develop an Action Plan, as necessary.
Climate Resiliency
Climate resiliency refers to the capacity of a landscape to respond, recover and maintain its structure
and function under changing climate conditions such as extreme weather events, increased wildfires, or
additional non-indigenous species. Washington County has historically been vulnerable to the effects of
climate change and trends show that Minnesota will experience increased precipitation, hotter
summers, warmer and wetter winters, and more severe weather events in the next 50 years. This
threatens natural resources by adding additional stressors to native plants and giving advantages to
non-indigenous species.
Many non-indigenous species benefit from the increased humidity in summers and warmer winters,
extending the ranges of species that used to be limited by the colder temperatures. Non-Indigenous
species also have a higher tolerance for flooding and large fluctuations in water levels. They degrade
native plant communities in a variety of ways including loss of species diversity, increased erosion,
reduced water quality, and altered nutrient cycling and soil health.
Non-indigenous species often employ reproductive strategies that increase dispersal whereas native
species have more limited abilities to expand their range. Hindered by this inability of the natural world
to adapt, scientists are concerned that natural areas will degrade to non-indigenous and generalist
species and lose the ecosystem functions that intact native plant communities provide. Fragmentation
and habitat loss of natural areas further limit the movement of species across the landscape.
Much of the work on climate resiliency has focused on landscape scale processes. Models incorporate
geophysical characteristics such as soils, bedrock geology, landforms, and elevation with measures of
how connected a natural area is to other natural areas in the landscape. Microclimates differ even with
small differences on the landscape. Sites that have more diverse landscape features may allow for more
species to move and persist at a local scale. The same is true for natural areas that are more connected
to landscapes at higher latitudes. This work highlights the importance of protecting and creating
corridors to allow for climate adaptation.
Being a city park, this land will contribute to connectedness and species adaptation to climate change on
the landscape scale. There are stewardship activities at the site level that can also increase climate
resiliency. Many of these activities have been mentioned elsewhere in this plan but also have importance
through the lens of climate resiliency.
37
Climate resiliency strategies for a site:
• Adaptation. Natural plant communities can adapt to changing conditions through natural
processes such as succession and colonization. Restoration and management goals on native
plant communities should focus on native plant communities that are well suited to the
conditions using historic native plant communities as a reference. However, there are sites and
species that may benefit by the process of assisted colonization, or the act of moving species to
a habitat where it may not have previously occurred. Using the adaptive management
framework (See Adaptive Management section), management activities are adjusted based on
monitoring the outcomes of an activity.
• Restoring and Maintaining Diversity. Species diversity plays a critical role in a healthy
ecosystem. Generally, the greater the biodiversity, the more ecosystem services that are
provided. Species diversity also provides greater stability and adaptability to climate change; a
diverse native plant community will have more resources to help it recover from flooding,
drought, or insect diseases. Species diversity can be encouraged by restoring native plant
communities; reintroducing natural disturbance regimes such as prescribed burning; and
enhancing species diversity by planting native trees, shrubs, grasses, and wildflowers.
• Reduce impacts to soil and nutrient cycling. Maintaining both soil quality and nutrient cycling
can improve the resiliency of ecosystems to adapt to new conditions. Land management in
combination with the effects of climate change such as fire drought and flooding can impact
ecosystem processes. Best management practices have been developed to protect soil and
water such as retaining coarse woody debris to maintain moisture and nutrient cycling; limiting
compaction in areas used for recreation and allowing heavy equipment only under frozen
conditions; and maintaining and restoring due recreational access; and maintaining and
restoring native herbaceous groundcover following management activities.
• Promoting Natural Disturbance. Disturbances play a key role in maintaining native plant
communities. Conservation grazing, selective harvesting and prescribed burning are all
techniques that can be used to mimic natural disturbance. Fire, for example, was once
commonplace across much of the landscape. The Suppression of fire has shifted the structure
and composition of native plant communities; prescribed burning has become a common
management tool for restoration purposes. It can reduce non-indigenous species and
understory completion. The seasonality of these prescribed burns may need to shift to align
with projected changes in seasonal precipitation. Wildfire season is expected to lengthen and
become more frequent in much of the Midwest. The risk of wildfire can be reduced by using
prescribed burning in those areas.
• Managing non-indigenous Species. Climate change is expected to increase habitat for many of
these non-indigenous species. Early detection and rapid response strategies are critical for
control. Special attention should be paid to highly mobile non- indigenous species. Increase
monitoring for known or potential non-indigenous species to ensure early detection, especially
38
at trailheads and along roadsides. Quickly eradicate existing populations or seed sources of non-
indigenous plants and clean equipment prior to entering natural areas to prevent the spread.
Once a species has become well-established, management efforts will need to be prioritized
based on species, locations, time of year, etc. Integrated Pest Management can be used to
manage non-indigenous species while decreasing the use of herbicides or improving their
methods of use.
Invasive Species Management
Urban sites are inherently susceptible to a variety of invasive species vectors. At Sill Ponds, several pre-
existing infestations present the potential for further spread throughout the area. In addition to these
established populations, seeds may be introduced via pedestrian traffic (including footwear and pets),
and maintenance equipment. Wildlife can also contribute to the migration of invasive materials.
Accordingly, it is recommended that site management efforts prioritize comprehensive invasive species
removal, with ongoing early detection and mitigation measures forming a core component of regular
maintenance activities. In the long term, establishing resilient and competitive native vegetation will
provide the most effective defense against invasive species colonization, thereby reducing the risk of
monoculture development.
Prevention
Preventing the introduction of invasive species that are currently not found on the land should be
prioritized. Since the protected land will primarily be used for recreational purposes, “Play, Clean, Go”
provides a useful framework:
• Remove plants, animals, and mud from boots, gear, pets and vehicles.
• Clean your gear before entering or leaving.
• Stay on designated roads and trails.
• Use certified materials such as firewood, straw, seed.
For more information on specific activities, visit the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
website on Invasive Species
Integrated Pest Management
The goal of Integrated Pest Management, often referred to as IPM, is an approach to managing non-
indigenous species that considers a suite of management options and attempts to reduce the use of
pesticides. Tools include biological (such as the introduction of a biocontrol agent), mechanical (such as
mowing or pulling), or chemical (such as herbicide). In order to minimize the use of chemicals and the
harm to plants that are not the target, IPM strategy uses the biology of the life cycle of the invasive
species to determine the best course of action. The target species at Sill Ponds include:
• Smooth brome (Bromus inermis)
• Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)
• Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)
• Honeysuckles (Lonicera sp.)
39
• Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)
• Amur maple (Acer ginnala)
• Dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis)
• Crown vetch (Securigera varia)
• Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)
• Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L.
Species that are not currently on the land but are in the area and occur in the current or desired native
plant communities include:
• Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa)
• Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)
• Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)
• Grecian foxglove (Digitalis lanata)
• Barberries (Berberis sp.)
• Roundleaf bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus)
See Appendix C for more information on the species listed above. More general information on invasive
species can be found on invasive online at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources webpages.
Public disturbance
As a public site bordered by development and interconnected trails, Still Ponds experiences significant
pedestrian traffic. It is important to recognize that certain areas within the park have been utilized for
personal purposes, such as compost dumping and the construction of a tree house. While some of these
activities may have occurred prior to the park's designation and were possibly well-intentioned, they can
adversely impact restoration outcomes and require attention.
Engaging local residents in restoration efforts aligned with the management objectives set by the City
presents opportunities for meaningful community involvement. Examples include organized volunteer
planting events and the development of City-approved soft trails using chipped materials generated
during restoration activities, such as woody debris removal. Continuous communication and public
engagement are essential for ensuring the sustained success of restoration initiatives.
40
Enhancement
Ecological restoration is an indefinite long-term commitment to a set of activities that initiate or
accelerate the transition to a more integral, healthy, and sustainable landscape. The concept of
restoring ecosystems has increased in importance as more natural landscapes become degraded or
converted to other uses with consequences on the services they can provide, from habitat to
groundwater recharge, fisheries, pollination, etc.
The activities involved in restoration are on a continuum of less intervention and disturbance to a
complete overhaul of an area, such as in reclamation of a mining site. Enhancement describes an activity
that focuses on improving ecological function often by increasing species diversity with planting or
seeding. It is often in conjunction with a management activity, for example, interseeding a prairie after a
prescribed burn.
Interseeding
Interseeding is the practice of setting back the existing vegetation to allow new seeds a chance to grow;
with the goal of increasing stand diversity, reducing weed populations, and habitat enhancement.
Considerations for interseeding include the following:
• Set back existing vegetation temporarily if the existing vegetation is desirable; this can be done
by mowing, grazing, or burning the vegetation. If the current vegetation is undesirable, for
example a weed dominated patch in or amongst a high-quality plant community, the vegetation
should be set back permanently. This can be accomplished using solarization, herbicides, or
physical removal.
• Thick vegetation or duff layer may need to be removed prior to seeding, most of the seed should
be touching bare soil.
• If soils are compacted aeration or soil loosening may be necessary for seed to soil contact and
seed germination.
• Ideal seeding times are in the spring or in fall during the dormant season. When dormant
seeding, seed does not need to be raked in unless the soil is excessively compact. The winter
freeze-thaw cycle will “rake” the seed in for you. When spring seeding, the seed should be
lightly raked into the soil. This will prevent the seed from washing out, drying out in the sun, and
predation from birds.
• For large sites, typically greater than an acre, a no-till drill will reduce seeding time and eliminate
the need for soil loosening and raking soil in.
• New seeds should be seeded at the recommended rate for each new species. If possible,
consider sourcing seed from nearby native plant communities.
Prairie Restoration
The goal of restoration is often returning a landscape to its condition prior to disturbance or improving
ecological function at a large-scale. For the purposes of this document, it is used to describe the process
of converting the landscape to a native plant community that would be appropriate to the soils,
geographic location, hydrology, current tree cover, etc. The process is a more comprehensive form of
41
management that often involves removing the current vegetation and reintroducing the native species
through seed or plants.
In the context of prairie and wetland restoration, it involves a site preparation, seeding and
maintenance. The goal of the site preparation is to kill existing vegetation and prepare the surface to
ensure that the seed is in contact with the soil. However, once the existing vegetation has been
removed, the soil should be disturbed as little as possible to reduce the germination of any weed seed in
the soil. Often land managers resolve this conflict in one of two ways:
1) Preparing the soil and broadcasting- vegetation is killed off and removed (often with prescribed
burning); the soil surface is prepared with tilling, disking and/or harrowing; the restoration area
is left to allow the weeds to germinate and be re-killed; seed is broadcast and lightly
incorporated with harrowing and any erosion control is added.
2) Drill seeding - vegetation is killed off and removed (often with prescribed burning); this step is
often repeated until the weeds are considered under control; seed is drilled into the area with a
seed drill and any erosion control needed is added.
There are variations to the above strategies and each strategy has benefits and shortcomings. The
decision to disturb the soil versus drill into existing soil often depends on the land use history, the type
and quantity of invasive species present, the soil type, and the time of year of the seeding. The time of
year of the seeding will also influence the outcome of the prairie. Spring seedings are completed prior to
June 30th (see Appendix E). These seedings tend to favor the prairie grasses and provide stable, but less
diverse prairie plantings. Dormant seedings occur after November 1st and freeze up; frost seedings occur
when the ground is frozen. These seedings tend to have more diversity and abundance of flower
species, but less germination of the native prairie grasses.
Management of the prairie installation is critical to the success of the restoration, especially for the first
two growing seasons. Depending on the timing of the seeding, the 1st growing season will be the first
few months for a spring seeding or the following spring and summer for a dormant or frost seeding. The
flush of vegetation that emerges after seeding is often the cover crop that has been planted for erosion
control and annual weeds. To ensure that the cover crop and weeds do not prevent sunlight from
reaching the germinating prairie seeds, it is recommended to mow the prairie for the first two growing
seasons. When the planting reaches 12-15 inches in height, the prairie is mown to a height of 6-8 inches.
Typically, this is needed about 2-3 times per growing season. Prescribed burning is recommended at the
beginning of the 3rd growing season and then at 3-5 year intervals, depending on the management goals.
Some amount of IPM is needed every year to ensure the long-term success of the prairie.
When a retired or current agricultural field has the goal of savanna restoration, a prairie restoration will
be completed first and the trees and shrubs will be planted after establishment. Often, a degraded oak
woodland is the current land cover for savanna restoration. That approach often involves tree and shrub
removal, prescribed burning, and enhancing with interseeding.
42
Restoring Ecosystem Processes
Prescribed burning
Historically, fire played one of the key ecological roles in the development of prairies, savannas and
woodlands. The frequency of fire varied from annually to every 50 years and was started by lightning or
was set intentional by American Indians. Fires set back the woody growth and encouraged the prairie
grasses and flowers. Since European settlement, fire on the landscape has largely been suppressed.
Many of the prairies and savannas that depend on fire have now become overgrown with woody
vegetation.
Prescribed burning is used to mimic these historic
fires and can be one of the most efficient and
effective tools to manage prairies, savannas, and
woodlands. On the protected land, fires could be
used for the following objectives:
• Reduce encroachment of woody species
(non-indigenous or otherwise).
• Reduce the cover of non-indigenous
herbaceous species.
• Encourage growth of native grasses and
flowers.
• Remove standing dead material.
• Invigorate brushlands.
• Improve wildlife habitat.
The objectives of a burn should be established to determine factors such as the location of the burn, the
time of year to implement, the weather conditions and intensity of the burn. Generally, it is not
recommended to burn more than a third of a given area in any one season to maintain habitat for
desired species that may not be tolerant of burning. Trails are often used as firebreaks, but firebreaks
can be installed and temporary if necessary.
Grazing
In addition to fire, grazing by animals such as bison or
elk has long played a role in shaping the North
American grassland ecosystems. Historically, grazers
were responsible for creating patch disturbances on
the landscape that allowed for a greater number of
flowering species to flourish. Today, conservation
grazing, or “managed grazing” utilizes animals such
as goats, sheep, cattle, and bison to mimic historical
disturbance regimes, provide weed suppression, and
increase habitat diversity or “heterogeneity” on the landscape. Animals used for prescribed grazing are
selected based on their grazing habits and food preference. Goats tend to target soft material from
43
woody species off of the ground, whereas sheep and cattle target grasses and softer herbaceous
growth. Results with these different animals will have a range of results and should be selected
accordingly based on desired outcomes. The feasibility or efficacy of grazing as a management tool
depends on several factors, including:
• The size of the land parcel
• Number of grazable acres
• Desired type of livestock
• Allowable stocking rate based on
grazable acres
• Nearby by shade and water sources
• Quarantine and exclosure areas
• Perimeter fencing requirements; etc.
One common approach to conservation grazing is to use brief intensive grazing events when a non-
indigenous plant is at its peak growth or when the plant may to more susceptible to defoliation. Often
one of the most challenging issues in prairie restoration is the dominance of non-indigenous cool season
grasses such as brome, reed canary grass, and Kentucky blue grass. These grasses can become so
dominant that they start outcompeting native vegetation, eventually leading to a decline in overall plant
diversity. Because cattle graze primarily on grasses, they can help reduce the cover of these non-
indigenous cool season grasses and release other plants from competition. The timing of the grazing
application typically occurs in spring and/or fall when the cool season grasses are active.
Conservation grazing can also enhance the structure of the grassland community by creating a diversity
of cover types—from short to tall, thick duff to open ground layer, or a combination in close proximity.
This diversity or “habitat heterogeneity” in turn favors a diversity of wildlife with unique habitat
preferences and requirements. It is important to consult with a qualified rangeland or natural resource
manager to determine if grazing is an appropriate management tool for your land.
Haying
In addition to, or in place of grazing, haying can be used to achieve many of the same management
objectives in grasslands. Mechanical harvest through haying can be used to remove non-indigenous
species, remove biomass and reduce nitrogen, and manipulate growth stages of habitat. The timing of
the haying event is the most critical factor. Similar to grazing and prescribed burning, haying should
occur when the undesirable species are at their most vulnerable stage of growth, typically peak. The
following are some general recommendations:
• If grassland birds are heavily using the area for nesting, avoid haying during the nesting season
of May 15th-August 1st.
• To maximize the yield of palatable forage and its protein content, cut when the warm season
grasses are sending up their flower stalks, usually late July or early August.
• To favor spring and early summer-blooming flowers, hay in mid-summer. The late summer and
fall blooming species are harvested before they can flower and produce seed.
44
• If haying before August 1st, leave corners, odd areas, or 30 to 60 foot borders along field edges
from getting hayed to provide for ground nesting wildlife.
• Typically, less than 1/3 of any given site will undergo management in a single year.
• Leave all regrowth following haying for winter and nesting cover.
Tree Removal
Managing woodlands and savanna using tree removal is an important part of restoring the structure and
composition of that plant community. Selective harvesting should use the following guidelines:
• Try to mimic natural disturbance patterns such as wind throws and fire. These disturbances
create forest openings to provide sunlit patches.
• Ensure the presence of snags (dead standing trees) and fallen logs to provide habitat. Over 85
North American bird species feed, nest or roost in decaying trees. Many reptiles and amphibians
live under rotting logs on the forest floor and feed on the invertebrates that are supported by
the decaying wood.
• Limit the construction of logging roads and skid trails and favor harvest techniques that
minimize soil disturbance to reduce mortality and loss of suitable habitat.
• Postpone timber harvests within or adjacent to valuable oak forests in the high-risk zone when
oaks are most susceptible to infection, from April 1 through July 15.
• Practice “Come clean, Leave clean” (See Appendix F) to prevent the spread on terrestrial
invasive species.
Record-keeping
Keeping accurate records of management activities will be critical in understanding how the landscape is
responding. In addition to recording activities, surveying ecological conditions is critical to set a baseline
while ecological monitoring provides feedback for the ecosystem response to restoration and
management activities. Below are some of the surveying and monitoring activities:
Surveying
• Distribution of buckthorn– Survey data would not only include location, but information on density
of coverage and size class to determine the number of years before becoming reproductive as well
as the removal approach.
• Distribution of garlic mustard - Survey data would not only include location, but information on
density of coverage to prioritize removal.
• Species presence absence – Vegetative sampling of species presence absence by management unit
to determine ecological health and for potential seed collection sources.
Monitoring
• Photo documentation – Qualitative monitoring using a photo point program uses photos at fixed
reference points to document changes on the landscape. Because buckthorn is the most prominent
45
non-indigenous species, the recommended timing for the photos to be taken is in October when
buckthorn still holding it leaves but native shrubs and trees have gone dormant.
• Vegetation plots/transects – Quantitative monitoring to determine the vegetative response to
restoration and management activities. Potential monitoring data includes the percent cover of
invasive species pre- and post- treatment, native species diversity pre- and post- treatment, and size
and distribution of pine and oak regeneration in the understory.
Adaptive Management
While surveying and monitoring are important to document baseline conditions, evaluating response of
the ecosystem using research is necessary to make management decisions considering uncertainty.
Adaptive management consists of a cycle of implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment
which leads to more implementation and repeats indefinitely
46
Information Sources
County History | Washington County, MN - Official website. (n.d.).
https://www.co.washington.mn.us/102/County-History
Minnesota Planning (Agency). (n.d.). Minnesota Land use and cover: historic. MN IT Services.
https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/land_use_historic.html
White, D. (n.d.). Level III and IV maps and descriptions. Ecological Regions of Minnesota.
https://gaftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/mn/mn_eco_desc.pdf
MHAPO. (n.d.). https://apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/
St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and Moraines Subsection. (n.d.). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Md/index.html
Bedrock Geology. (n.d.). University of Minnesota Geological Survey.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/bde71cad-4215-44af-9cda-
18c45d5cde6e/content
Web Soil Survey. (n.d.). https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Generalized Land Use 2020 - Minnesota Geospatial Commons. (n.d.). https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-
mn-state-metc-plan-generl-lnduse2020
MNDNR. 2004. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System User Manual. Version 5.3. Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Central Region.
Native Plant Community Classification. (n.d.). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/classification.html
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota:
The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota Biological
Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN, 2005.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Living with Wildlife: Nuisance Animals.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/livingwith_wildlife/index.html
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan
for Minnesota Wildlife. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN, 2006.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Play, Clean, Go.
47
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrial/prevent_the_spread.html.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Terrestrial Invasive Species - Identification and
Management. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrial/id.html
Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Noxious and Invasive Weed Program.
https://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants-insects/noxious-and-invasive-weed-program
St. Croix Valley Foundation. North woods and Water of the St. Croix National Heritage Area Feasibility
Study. St. Croix Valley Foundation. 2014.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
https://www.fws.gov/hunting/north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation.html
Wovcha, Daniel S, et al. Minnesota’s St. Croix River Valley and Anoka Sandplain: A guide to Native
Habitats. University of Minnesota Press, 1995.
Cottage Grove Parks and Recreation- Official website. Parks & Recreation | Cottage Grove, MN
Washington County Historical Society- Cottage Grove- Official website Cottage Grove – Washington
County Historical Society
48
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Soil Classifications
Appendix B: Native Plant Communities
FDs37
WMn82
Mrn93
MHs39
MHs49
Appendix C: Invasive Species
• Smooth brome (Bromus inermis)
• Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)
• Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)
• Honeysuckles (Lonicera sp.)
• Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)
• Amur maple (Acer ginnala)
• Dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis)
• Crown vetch (Securigera varia)
• Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)
• Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L.
• Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa)
• Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)
• Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)
• Grecian foxglove (Digitalis lanata)
• Barberries (Berberis sp.)
• Roundleaf bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus)
Appendix D: Climate Ready Woodlands
Appendix E: BWSR Recommended Restoration Seeding Dates
Appendix F: Clean Play Go; Come Clean, Leave Clean.
To:
From:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Introduction/Background
Staff Recommendation
Memo
To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
From: Molly Pietruszewski, Recreation Services Manager
Date: 2/27/2026
Re: March: Summer Supervised Playgrounds
Please feel free to call or email with any questions or comments, 651-458-3404.
The 2026 Summer Supervised Playgrounds (SP) program
opened for registration at our six sites on February 10,
2026. SP is our primary summer program at Glacial
Valley, Hamlet, Hearthside, Pine Tree Valley, Peter
Thompson, and Highway 61 Hockey Camp, offering full-
day programming for youth ages 4–12.
These programs have become very popular over the
years and typically sell out within minutes. This year was
no different; all sites are full, and waitlists have been
closed due to high demand. We are very grateful for the
opportunity to work with our summer-season staff,
youth volunteers, and the families we serve each year.
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
February:
Trash run
Building maintenance
Clean equipment and bay
Put together benches and tables
Ice rink flooding/maintenance
Tree cutting- Nina's, North Ideal, Xcel, Pine Tree
Valley
Fecon- Xcel, Pine Tree Valley
Equipment replacement
Remove hose reel from van
Post seasonal staff positions
Stup grinding-Nina's, Xcel, Pine Tree Valley
Remove hockey nets
Building cleaning
Remove matting from Glacial Valley
Clean tile at Glacial Valley
Bench removal from buildings
March:
Floor and building cleaning
Trash run
Building maintenance: painting, general repairs
New filters in drinking fountains
Stump grinding
Plowing
Remove ice on W rink (3/10)
Ice arena turf installation (3/11 and 3/12)
Install new controller for splash pad
Tree removals
Remove tractor from Ice Arena/install drag
Remove tractor from City Hall/install drag
Trash run
RPZ's installed
Splash pad equipment cleaned
New batteries in auto flushers
Lamar snow fence removal
Playground inspections
Spring field and court supply orders
To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
From:
CC:
Jordan Hirman, Facility Services Manager
Date: March, 2026
Subject: Update on Ice Arena Activities
Below is an overview of Ice Arena Activities that are complete, projects/programs we are working on, and
upcoming projects/programs:
COMPLETED PROJECTS/PROGRAMS
• Completed 2025/26 High School Hockey season with 34 home games scheduled.
• Scheduled shut down with contractor for the West Refrigeration on March 9th.
• Turf scheduled to install on March 12th.
• Scheduled 6 summer tournaments.
• Winter Skating Lessons with 129 participants.
• Hosted District 8 PWB1, U15B, and U12B2.
• Themed Valentine skate night February 14th with 70 skaters and 35 skate rentals.
CURRENT PROJECTS/PROGRAMS
• West Rink Ice removal is scheduled for March 12th.
• Booking Spring/Summer clinics and schools for 2026.
• Current scheduled turf time has 217 hours with over $21,000 in revenue.
• Working with outstate Boys State High School teams coming to play in the State Tournament for practice
ice.
• Planning brochure for Summer Skating Lessons.
• Spring Skate School programming with 123 participants.
• Scheduling City programs for the Fall and Winter.
• Working with past customers to book Spring/Summer/Fall ice time.
• Marketing Egg Hunt hosting at the Ice Arena March 28th.
• Marketing bounce house event partnership between Recreation and Ice Arena held on March 20th.
• Marketing Skate and Ice Paint event partnership between Recreation and Ice held on May 1st.
• Marketing a new event collaboration with Recreation to host a Mini Golf event on the turf April 3rd.
• Working with Park Boys Boosters and CGHA for a potential locker room build in CG Logistics Rink.
UPCOMING PROJECTS/PROGRAMS
• 2025 Cottage Grove Ice Show “Enchanted Toy Box” May 16th.
• Spring turf rentals.
• Removal of CG Logistics and South Rink scheduled for May 1st.
• Scheduled ice install for the West Rink the week of May 5th with first ice on May 9th.
• Install West Rink for week of April 20th.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 651-458-3400.