Root River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

© Coldsnap Photography

June 2013

Sections 1 through 9 and the appendices of this plan were written by Zach Reusch, Acer Forest and Tree, LLC. Sections 10 and 11 were written by Brooke Haworth, Ecologist with the Ecological and Water Resources Division of the Minnesota DNR.

Funding provided by: US Forest Service, US Environmental Protection Agency and Minnesota Forest Resources Council

This plan was written in order to provide guidance to natural resource managers in the Root River Watershed with the goal of promoting sustainable management of the landscape, the vegetation, and the wildlife in the watershed. It can serve as a reference for those writing stewardship plans, those interested in learning about natural features, those interested in watershed protection, and those seeking to improve the health of rivers, streams, soil, vegetation and terrestrial and aquatic animals in the watershed.

The overall supervision of this project and editing and revision of the draft plan was provided by the Root River Landscape Stewardship Project Steering Team, which consists of the following members:

Richard Biske, Southeast Minnesota Conservation Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy Lindberg Ekola, Landscape Program Manager, Minnesota Forest Resource Council Gary Michael, Private Forest Management Coordinator, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Donna Rasmussen, Administrator, Fillmore Soil and Water Conservation District Hannah Texler, Regional Plant Ecologist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Oversight of the grant from the US Forest Service was provided by Dennis McDougall, Forest Stewardship Program Coordinator. The grant administrator was the Fillmore Soil and Water Conservation District.

Additional assistance was provided by the Root River Landscape Stewardship Planning/Coordination Committee. Members included the Steering Team members and these additional members:

Name Title Organization/DNR Division Jaime Edwards Nongame Specialist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Valiree Green PFM Forester DNR Forestry Jim Edgar Forestry Specialist DNR Forestry Michelle Martin ECS Ecologist DNR Forestry Beth Reusch Forester DNR Forestry Emily Hutchins Private Lands Specialist DNR Wildlife Mitch Gilbert Consulting Forester Independent contractor Nancy Kafka Conservation Director, Southern Region Minnesota Land Trust Shaina Keseley Watershed Coordinator MPCA Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan i

Brian Green Watershed Coordinator Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Bob Joachim District Conservationist NRCS (Preston) Angie Gupta Extension Educator, SE MN University of Minnesota Brad Gatzlaff Consulting Forester Zumbro Valley Forestry LLC Vaughn Snook Fisheries Specialist DNR Fisheries John Harford Planner Olmsted County Daryl Buck Manager Winona SWCD

For more information, or to obtain copies of this document, contact: Rich Biske, [email protected], phone number (507) 765-2450

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan ii

Table of Contents Part 1: Where have we been and where are we today? ...... 1 Section 1: Introduction ...... 1 Section 2: Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment ...... 6 A. Geology ...... 6 B. Hydrology...... 10 C. Soils...... 14 D. Vegetation ...... 16 E. Rare Natural Features ...... 25 F. Wildlife ...... 29 G. Historic Cultural Resources ...... 32 H. Land Use History ...... 33 I. Current Land Uses ...... 36 Section 3: Key Findings: Assets, Issues and Opportunities ...... 40 A. Assets ...... 40 B. Issues ...... 41 C. Opportunities...... 45 D. Current Benchmarks of Success ...... 48 Part 2: Where do we want to go? ...... 49 Section 4: Vision and Desired Future Conditions...... 49 A. Vision ...... 49 B. Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) ...... 50 Section 5: Goals, Objectives and Actions ...... 52 Part 3: How will we get there? ...... 64 Section 6: Coordination Strategies...... 64 A. Overview ...... 64 B. Coordination Strategies ...... 65 C. Coordination Successes ...... 71 Section 7: Implementation: Strategies and Action Plan ...... 73 A. Implementation Strategies ...... 73 B. Implementation Tools ...... 74 C. 10-Year Action Plan (and goals actions are targeted at): Root River Watershed Landscape Stewardship ...... 77 Section 8: Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 81 A. Overview ...... 81 Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan iii

B. Short-Term: Monitor Performance and Evaluate Process ...... 82 C. Long-Term: Assess Results and Evaluate Effectiveness ...... 82 Section 9: Agency and Organization Recommendations...... 83 A. Recommendations to the MFRC ...... 83 B. Recommendations to Local Officials ...... 83 C. Recommendations to Resource Agencies ...... 84 D. Recommendations to Conservation and Non-governmental Organizations ...... 84 E. Recommendations to Education Groups ...... 85 F. Recommendations to Private Landowners and Consultants ...... 85 Priority Areas ...... 86 Section 10: Pine Creek-Rushford Conservation Opportunity Area Plan ...... 86 Phase 1. Core Opportunity Area (COA) selection ...... 86 Phase 2. Natural Resource Assessment ...... 87 Phase 3: Identify land ownership and land use ...... 111 Phase 4. Landscape Complex Discussion ...... 125 Phase 5: Desired future conditions ...... 134 Phase 6. Identify key stewardship parcels ...... 135 Phase 7. Identify stewardship activities ...... 137 Phase 8. Perform a stewardship stakeholder analysis ...... 138 Phase 9. Project lead and coordination of tasks ...... 139 Phase 10. Project initiation ...... 140 Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan ...... 141 Phase 1. Core Opportunity Area (COA) selection ...... 141 Phase 2. Natural Resource Assessment ...... 142 Phase 3: Identify land ownership and land use ...... 170 Phase 4. Landscape Complex Discussion ...... 180 Phase 5: Desired future conditions ...... 190 Phase 6. Identify key stewardship parcels ...... 191 Phase 7. Identify stewardship activities ...... 193 Phase 8. Perform a stewardship stakeholder analysis ...... 194 Phase 9. Project lead and coordination of tasks ...... 196 Phase 10. Project initiation ...... 196 Appendix A: Minnesota Biological Survey Site Biodiversity Significance Ranking Criteria, developed by the Minnesota DNR, 2009...... 198 Appendix B: Native Plant Communities Mapped by the Minnesota Biological Survey in the Root River Watershed ...... 200

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan iv

Appendix C: State Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plant and Animal Species in the Root River Watershed (as of April 2013) ...... 202 Appendix D: Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Blufflands Subsection (Minnesota DNR 2006) ...... 208 Appendix E: Regional Plans’ Common Themes within the Root River Watershed ...... 214 Appendix F: List of Agencies and Organizations (with abbreviations) Important to Conservation in the Root River Watershed ...... 219 Appendix G: Conservation Related Tax Programs for Private Landowners ...... 223 Appendix H: Terms and Definitions ...... 231 Appendix I: Bibliography for Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan, Pine Creek-Rushford Conservation Opportunity Area Plan, and Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan ...... 234

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan v Section 1 - Introduction

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan

Part 1: Where have we been and where are we today?

Section 1: Introduction

The Root River Watershed

The 1,064,000+ acres of the Root River Watershed of Southeast Minnesota is as rich in habitat for game and nongame wildlife species as it is in aesthetic beauty. Long valleys rimmed with dry prairies and hardwood hills are bisected by coldwater trout streams. Unlike any other part of the state, much of the watershed and the greater Mississippi River Blufflands have been largely untouched by glaciers for 500,000 years. As a result of this unique geology, the Blufflands are home to diverse habitats. No other region in the state demonstrates this diversity and uniqueness of habitats.

While much of the region has been converted to cropland, pasture and rural development, many bluffs and valleys of the watershed are still home to high quality cliffs, forests, oak savannas, and prairies, including 40 different native plant community types mapped by the Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) covering nearly 38,000 acres. The Root River watershed represents an extraordinary priority: there are 111 species of state-listed rare plants and animals in the watershed, many of them concentrated in the 353 sites of biodiversity significance mapped in the watershed by MBS. The U.S Forest Service has also identified the Root River as having a high priority among Upper Mississippi River watersheds.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 1

Section 1 - Introduction

Figure 1. Forested Watersheds Thanks to this diversity, the area is highly regarded for turkey and deer hunting along with trout fishing, hiking and biking. Outdoor recreation is a significant component to the local economy and heritage, drawing visitors from across the upper Midwest. However, less than 3% of the Root River Watershed is open to the public and relatively very little is in any kind of protected status. Moreover, growth of nearby communities like Rochester and La Crosse are increasing rural development with bluff top and remote country homes. More roads, buildings and associated infrastructure further fragments an already fragmented landscape, disturbing forest habitat and increasing already high erosion rates. In addition, farming practices have increasingly encroached on these unique habitats including sites of biodiversity significance, threatening water quality of some of the regions premier trout streams. Native habitats are also threatened by poor management, lack of management, invasive species, and fire suppression.

This plan provides a framework for the protection and restoration of natural resources in the Root River watershed by coordinating stakeholders and engaging residents.

Context for the Landscape Stewardship Plan

What is Landscape Stewardship? Landscape stewardship involves bringing together the stakeholders in a community of place or community of interest to address resource-based issues of mutual concern. Different stakeholders typically have different views of an issue. For example, a public agency may be interested in improving forest health to conserve and protect endangered species, a woodland owner may be interested in improved

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 2

Section 1 - Introduction

fishing or hunting opportunities, and a member of the public may be interested in access to trails.

The landscape stewardship approach is predicated on the likelihood that these different “stakes” will be satisfied by common solutions. This approach follows five general principles in developing and applying these solutions:

 Invest in priority areas – be strategic.  Build a collaborative network – create ownership in the process and leverage resources.  Appeal to self-interest – understand stakeholder motivations and needs.  Manage for results – align actions with objectives and evaluate outcomes.  Encourage flexibility at all levels – be adaptive; every situation is unique.

What is a “Landscape”? A landscape approach to forest stewardship focuses on a geographic area or subject area. The actual extent of a “landscape” will vary depending on both the issues and objectives identified at the beginning of the landscape stewardship effort and the approach taken to address them. Landscape approaches can cover thousands of acres. The pattern of ownership may be more important than acreage in defining the landscape. The ability to effectively communicate with and subsequently engage private forest landowners should be a primary consideration in defining the extent of the landscape.

The “All Lands” Perspective Because of the interconnectedness of the natural world, landscape stewardship incorporates all land use types within a defined project area, which may include urban or agricultural areas as well as public and private lands. Achieving shared objectives in a landscape depends on a range of community-level land-use policies, the mix of existing land uses, activities within the landscape itself, and the conservation and natural resource management programs implemented in the project area. Conversely, the management and condition of privately owned woodland impacts jobs, aesthetics, recreation appeal, biodiversity and sustainability of the wider community.

A Landscape Stewardship Approach to Natural Resource Conservation Landscape stewardship is divided into four inter-related phases. Using this four-part structure can help to organize and develop landscape stewardship programs and landscape stewardship projects:

 Planning – Develop a common vision and desired future conditions. Further develop goals and specific steps to reach that future. Focus on results and suggest the means to achieve those results.  Coordination – Build on existing relationships, foster new partnerships, initiate outreach, and begin to allocate project responsibilities using agreed-upon strategies.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 3

Section 1 - Introduction

 Implementation – Bring the project’s pieces together through interested stakeholders to reach the goals identified in the Planning and Coordination phases of the approach.  Monitoring and Evaluation – Track accomplishments and evaluate the effectiveness of program actions and investments. Celebrate outcomes and determine ways for the project to adapt for continual success.

Relationship to Other Conservation Approaches Landscape stewardship is but one major approach to forest conservation. It is closely related to traditional individual landowner assistance programs because it expands the number of private landowners who are engaged in the stewardship of their woodland and know what condition it is in, how to manage it, and how important it is.

Engaged landowners are aware of professional forest management resources, are more likely to access forest management information, and are predisposed to seek and follow professional advice when they need to make management decisions. In contrast, most family forest landowners will only make resource management decisions a few times during their ownership tenancy, so a comprehensive forest stewardship plan may be of limited value to them.

Landscape stewardship projects significantly increase the number of engaged individuals and communities, which in turn increases benefits to all stakeholders as well as society at large. This collaborative approach reduces the costs to deliver services to landowners and their attendant communities.

The Planning Process To have specific measurables in which to prove success over time, a well-produced plan will have clear pictures of the present and future. The following are sections within this plan that fit the planning process:

 Where are we? – Describes a brief history of how we have arrived at the present as well as an inventory and assessment of key features presently within the Root River Watershed.  Where are we going? – Describes the broad targets, more clearly defined goals and measureable objectives for the long term and short term future.  How do we get there? – Describes thecoordination needed between multiple ownerships and people to implement the specifics and monitor them over time.

Why Choose Watersheds as a Focus Area? "The relationship between forests and rivers is like father and son." -Gifford Pinchot, 1905

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 4

Section 1 - Introduction

A watershed describes the boundary of an area in which all water running off the land drains to a single point, typically a stream or lake. A watershed can represent different scales from a portion of a forest or pasture to as large as the Mississippi River basin draining to the Gulf of Mexico. The Root River watershed was chosen as the boundary for this plan because it represents multiple scales of Southeast Minnesota and allows for water quality and quantity monitoring as it enters the Mississippi River. This is important because water quality/quantity is a representation of a landscape’s health.

Very little of the watershed is under urban development (5.3%). Much of the 40,000 residents are spread out through the rural area. However, as population expands, new developments threaten the scenic beauty of the watershed.

The watershed transitions from relatively flat glacial till in the west to rolling hills in the central active karst zone to steep bluffs and long river valleys in the east. Natural communities vary throughout these unique zones of the watershed.

What Does This Plan Do For Me? This plan’s purpose is to promote sustainable activities on the ground, on all lands, public and private to improve the overall health of natural resources in the watershed. It can be used to determine the uniqueness of a given resource in the watershed and its proper management techniques. Maintaining these features and improving biodiversity improves habitat and often land value. This plan should be referenced in private forest, prairie, and other habitat stewardship plans as a way to pursue funding for activities that promote sound resource management.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 5

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Section 2: Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment

This chapter provides an overview of the significant natural and cultural resources in the Root River Watershed, including geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation, wildlife, rare natural features, and historic cultural resources. Assessments of these resources, with an emphasis on how they relate to protection and stewardship of significant lands, are also included.

A. Geology

Driftless Area The Root River Watershed is located within the Driftless Area, a region characterized by steep bluffs, deep valleys and rolling uplands spanning 20,000 square miles across portions of southeast Minnesota, southwest Wisconsin, northeast Iowa and northwest Illinois. Glacial drift refers to the material left by glaciers including clay, silt, sand and Figure 2. Driftless Area gravel. The region is often regarded as ‘Driftless’ because it contains very little glacial material from the last glaciation to affect the region. Much of the Driftless Area was glaciated at one time. However, unlike the surrounding area that was covered during the Wisconsin Glaciation, the Driftless Area has likely been free of glaciation since the early Pleistocene age. While not truly ‘driftless,’ 500,000 years of erosional processes have removed much of the glacial drift in the area, making it similar to the truly driftless area of Southwest

County Rd 129

C oun t y R d. 13 9 Wisconsin. The larger Root River watershed represents the region’s glacial history and the subsequent impact on Minnesota landscapes.

Bedrock The Minnesota Geological Survey indicates that the sedimentary bedrock in southeast Minnesota was laid down in extensive, shallow subtropical seas that covered the region between 545 and 360 million years ago, during the

Whitewater River Cambrian, Ordovician, and Devonian Periods of the Paleozoic Era. Between 300 and 2 million years ago southeastern Minnesota probably lay above sea level, and the land surface was eroded by wind and water. Most of the unconsolidated sediment that overlies the bedrock in the Root River region Driftless Area Boundary 0 50 100 today was deposited during the last 2 million years of geologic history by Miles Root River glaciers, water or wind.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 6

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Bedrock geology consists of alternating layers of shale, sandstone, and carbonates of Paleozoic age. These deposits have been eroded from west to east so that individual formations vary in their vertical position. Where carbonate bedrock is the first bedrock, it may be highly dissolved as in the case of the Galena group of limestone and minor dolostone. Also notable are the northeast facing escarpments exposing a thin mix of St. Peter Sandstone, Glenwood Formation, Platteville Formation and Decorah Shale with less permeable Prairie Du Chien group carbonate below. Beneath these is a group of Cambrian carbonates and sandstones including: Eau Claire Formation, the Ironton and Galesville Sandstones, Franconia Formation, St. Lawrence Formation, Jordan Sandstone, Oneota Dolomite, and Shakopee Formation. The Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone is the oldest Paleozoic unit.

Bedrock exposed by downcutting and erosion is an important component of the landscape in the watershed. Exposed bedrock forms several significant native plant communities, including various kinds of cliffs and talus slopes, discussed further in the Vegetation section. Bedrock outcrops occur throughout other plant communities such as forests and bedrock bluff prairies, and often support rare plant and animal populations that utilize exposed rock for all or part of their life cycle.

Surficial During the 'Pleistocene Ice Age' (between 2 million and 10,000 years ago) glaciers as much as 2 miles thick extended across northern Canada. Thinner ice lobes extended southward across much of the Upper Midwest and even covered the Root River Watershed. Within the watershed, the local direction of ice flow was west to east, although the main direction of ice movement was southward. As the ice advanced, it scraped soil and rocks from the land surface and transported boulders, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Some of this material still remains as isolated patches on uplands in the Root River region. Deposits of both till and outwash are thicker and more Figure 3. Bedrock stratigraphic column of the Root River State Trail area continuous west of Fountain, where streams have not yet from Geology of the Root River State Trail Area, Southeastern Minnesota by John H Mossler. removed the cover and cut into the landscape.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 7

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

When the ice melted producing large volumes of melt water, erosion was accelerated and streams flowed nearly over bedrock. Tributary streams such as the Root River entrenched their valleys in response to the lowering of 'base level' in the Mississippi River. During the Late Wisconsinan (about 25,000 years before present), an ice lobe lay just to the west and north of the region. With its rapid melt, deposition of sand and gravel in southeastern Minnesota occurred. At the same time that valleys were filling with sand and gravel, windblown silt (loess) was deposited across the region. The substrates that have been left behind are also made evident by the variety of native plant communities in specific locations. For example, outwash sands support vegetation such as pine and oak barrens and prairies, while more fertile loess sustains mesic hardwood and fire-dependent forests.

The last continental ice sheet melted about 10,000 years before the present. At that time loess was no longer deposited, and streams again started to cut down through the Pleistocene sand and gravel that filled the valleys. The streams typically did this in stages, leaving behind a series of terraces. The down cutting streams, such as the Root River, were responding to the entrenchment of the Mississippi River, which carved out its valley when Lake Agassiz (an enormous glacial lake that extended across eastern North Dakota, northwestern Minnesota and southern Manitoba) drained through the Minnesota River into the Mississippi.

After the ice melted and the glacial lakes to the north had drained, rivers like the Mississippi and Root carried less water and lost much of their erosive power. Their valleys once again filled with sediment, this time with organic-rich silt sustaining a variety of floodplain ecosystems in ancient oxbow lakes. Smaller tributaries were affected by an additional valley filling episode that started during the settlement of the region in the mid-19th century. Runoff from plowed fields carried large amounts of soil into the valleys, in places burying pre-settlement soil to depths of seven to eight feet.

Karst Features The Root River watershed landscape is abundant in carbonate rocks and has more karst terrain than any other watershed in Minnesota. Fillmore County alone has more karst features than all other Minnesota counties combined. These relatively soft and porous rocks are characterized by unique features such as sink holes, springs, disappearing streams, and caves.

These karst aquifers are highly susceptible to pollution because contaminated surface water can rapidly infiltrate through soils or directly enter the subsurface via sinkholes. Once in a karst aquifer, polluted waters can move laterally much faster (miles per day) than in non-karst aquifers (inches or feet per day). Ground water flowing through karst aquifers can even move into adjacent, non-karst aquifers. The water flowing from karst aquifers commonly carries surface contaminants, and is high in ions dissolved from carbonate bedrock. When the karst ground waters return to the surface, these contaminants are added to surface streams and rivers.

The Root River Watershed has many different types of caves such as network caves, branchwork caves, intermediate caves, and ramiform caves. Network caves are largely influenced by flooding and stream flow. Mystery Cave, one of the most well-

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 8

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

known, is a type of network cave that was formed where surface water enters the bedrock and has at least 12 miles of mapped passages. Mystery Cave was formed within the Galena Group limestone which is also particularly susceptible to dissolution. Branchwork caves function as outlets that return subsurface water to the surface. Pine Cave, Tyson’s Spring Cave, and Stagecoach Cave are examples within the watershed and resemble a surface stream and its tributaries in their shape and layout. Niagara Cave near Harmony, MN is an intermediate cave with an underground river and waterfall and is open for commercial tours. Ramiform caves resemble inkblots in shape and layout, usually consisting of randomly located large rooms with short dead-end passages. Small examples of ramiform caves include the Crawlway Cave, which contains about 2000 feet of passage and is developed entirely within the Platteville Formation.

Another major feature of the karst terrain are sinkholes. Sinkholes are formed where sediment and soil collapse into cavities that have been dissolved away by water. Often these sinks or sink holes are directly connected to outlets such as springs and seeps, where the water pressure causes a direct and visible overland flow. There are more than 6700 mapped sinkholes within the Root River watershed. In fact the town of Fountain, MN has been known as the sinkhole capital of the United States. Within the watershed there are both actively subsiding and passively filling sinkholes. The active sinks generally have less than 50 feet of surface material overlaying the bedrock. Sinkholes can form anywhere in the watershed except in the stream valleys that have eroded down below the Oneota Dolomite. The single best predictor of new sinkhole development is other nearby sinkholes. Although there are atlases displaying known locations, many sinkholes are not yet shown on existing maps or may have been filled. There are also many inactive paleosinkholes that have been filled with pre- and post-glacial sediments.

Springs within the watershed can be very complex due to the variety of factors influencing them. More than 1100 springs have been mapped in the watershed. Generally there are two types: springs that respond rapidly to a recharge event and others that have slower responses. Also since water moves between aquifers, contaminants found in a spring may have multiple sources. Rapidly responding ‘conduit springs’ recharge directly from sinkholes or stream sinks carrying properties more directly from their source. More than 140 conduit springs have been mapped in the watershed. Tracer studies have shown water emerging from karst springs to have been on the surface a few hours or weeks earlier. The water quality of most springs changes rapidly and shows surface contaminants including nitrate, pesticides, and bacteria. Due to water quality degradation, spring utilization as a domestic water supply has been largely abandoned.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 9

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

B. Hydrology

Rivers and streams The Root River is 81 miles long, beginning in an area dominated by intensive agriculture, and then flowing east into the more wooded, rolling karst terrain, where groundwater provides base flow for trout streams. The Root River has three main branches: the North, Middle, South Branch and South Fork. The North and Middle Branches join together south of Chatfield and meet the South Branch near Lanesboro. The South Fork flows through the Yucatan Valley and enters the main stem of the Root River near Houston. Other large tributaries include Money Creek, Rush Creek, and Thompson Creek. Because of the large influence of groundwater inputs into the streams, historically the streams supported coldwater trout populations. With the conversion to row crop agriculture in lowland and floodplain areas in recent decades, soil temperature and corresponding groundwater temperature in critical areas has risen. This increase in stream temperature has contributed to an increasing number of streams being unable to support the historic levels of trout.

Average annual precipitation in the area ranges from 32 to 36 inches and increases toward the southeast. Annual runoff ranges from 5.5 to about 8 inches, increasing from west to east. From 2000-2008 the average stream discharge was 1152 cubic feet per second near Houston, MN while from 1950-1979 the average was 670 cubic feet per second. This 57% increase in mean annual flow from 1980-2009 compared to 1940-1979 is due largely to vegetation changes within the watershed. In comparison to annual crops, prairie grasses and forestland produce significantly less runoff after increased precipitation events (Lenhart and Nieber 2011). As an increasing portion of the watershed is dedicated to annual crops, higher annual stream discharges in addition to higher flooding flows from intense summer rains can be expected.

In terms of state water quality standards, streams in the watershed are Class 1B (for domestic consumption following disinfection) and 2A (support of cold water sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life, and support of aquatic recreation) (MPCA 2008). High concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria and sediment impair the Root River, limiting its suitability for recreation and for aquatic life support. High nitrate and phosphate levels in particular stimulate algae which through growth and decomposition consume dissolved oxygen, a necessary ingredient for aquatic life. Phosphorus, un-ionized ammonia, and fecal coliform bacteria have been decreasing over past decades, while nitrate-nitrogen concentrations have been increasing. Largely the sources of these concentrations are non-point through overland runoff but do include feedlots, row crop fertilizers, and storm water (MPCA 2012).

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 10

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 4. Root River Watershed

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 11

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Groundwater The Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer supplies most of the household water used within the watershed. Usually the movement of groundwater is a very slow process. The movement of groundwater through the small spaces between rock and mineral grains is a very effective way to filter suspended sediment and other impurities from the water. In contrast, sinkholes, caverns and crevices of karst terrains (as is common within this watershed) do not filter the water that is recharging the water table because of the porosity and solubility of the rocks and minerals. Therefore, areas underlain by carbonate rocks are very sensitive to pollution. Runoff from farm fields often contains sediment and agricultural chemicals or bacteria. Such runoff can reach the water table very quickly by flowing down sinkholes and through the underground waterways, to bypass nature's natural filtration system. The use of sinkholes as rubbish dumps (because they appear to be otherwise unusable plots of land), common in the watershed, is also highly undesirable. Contaminated water can spread over large areas, and may remain within the aquifer indefinitely.

Much of the Root River Watershed groundwater is highly susceptible to contamination as shown in the figure below. This index is based on the Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility model by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Porcher, 1989). The vulnerability of groundwater to contamination was modeled based on the following inputs: aquifer materials, vadose zone (subsurface unsaturated layer) materials, net recharge, and soil type.

Groundwater health and flow are critical components in the context of native plant communities and biodiversity in the Root River Watershed. Some plant communities that are only in abundance within the watershed, depend on moisture that is singly delivered through groundwater seepage. Additionally these communities host rare plants and animals extremely sensitive to environmental change. In Southern Algific Talus and Southern Wet Cliffs communities for example plants like Iowa golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium iowense, listed as MN endangered) and montia (Montia chamissoi, listed as MN endangered) receive moisture only through these groundwater seeps. Furthermore the Midwest Pleistone vertigo (Veritgo hubrichti, listed as MN endangered) exists only in these communities and as a mollusk is very sensitive to agricultural chemicals and pesticides.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 12

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 5. Groundwater Vulnerability

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 13

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

C. Soils

Soil types in the Root River Watershed The soils and land types of the region have been formed largely in the deposits laid down by wind, water, and ice during the Pleistocene. An extensive cover of loess, ranging from a few inches to more than 20 feet deep, was deposited by wind during the retreat of the Iowan glacier, covering much of the watershed east of the Iowan glacial border. On the steep valley slopes, particularly in the larger valleys, where geologic erosion has been active, the bedrock is exposed or the cover of loess is thin.

Glacial drift deposits of Iowan age cover the western portions of the watershed. Eastward from the thick Iowan drift area the glacial deposits are thin. In some places the deposits occur in pre glacial valleys and as a thin mantle on the sides. Terraces of the Root River valley consist of stratified gravel, sand, and silt. In the glacial drift area the terraces consist of deposits left by melt waters from the waning glaciers.

The majority of the watershed is highly dissected hills and valleys composed of well-drained and moderately well-drained silty soils over bedrock (see map on p. 15). In the west quarter of the watershed gently sloping to very steep dissected till plains are found. These soils are predominantly well-drained and are formed in thin silty material over loamy till, with sedimentary bedrock below.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 14

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 6. Soils by Drainage Class

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 15

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

D. Vegetation

Historic (Marschner) Vegetation Patterns Analysis of the Public Land Survey bearing tree data (MNDNR 2005) show that historically naturally occurring fires were common in some distinct areas with varying frequency and intensity while in other vegetative communities fire was absent. In Fire-Dependent Forest/Woodland Systems, catastrophic timber stand replacing fires occurred at an interval of 110 years. More commonly, light surface fires created areas of partial canopy loss and reduced woody vegetation at a rotation interval of 12 years. Although little is known about historic fire rotation intervals in prairie and savanna settings, these plant communities are also fire dependent. They quickly succeed into tree and shrub woodlands when fire is suppressed indicating a more frequent rotation interval.

Bearing tree data also show that historically in floodplain forest communities partial canopy loss was experienced at a rotation of 40 years while catastrophic windthrow occurred at an interval of 308 years. Fire was not described in the survey notes for these areas. The common partial canopy losses are mostly documented as small windthrow events although it could be inferred that flooding and tree diseases contributed to windthrow.

In mesic hardwood forests small windthrow events were also the common natural disturbance with an occurrence interval of 51 years. The rotation interval of a major windthrow event was 680 years while a stand replacing fire was calculated at a 3210 year interval.

At the time of the 19th century European settlement large stands of trees were found only in the valleys of the larger streams and on the uplands of the eastern 1/3 of the area. Frequent fires had encouraged large communities of tall-grass prairie and scattered patches of oak savanna in the remaining lands (Trow, 1981). See the map on p. 17.

Current Vegetation There are many community types within the Root River Watershed. A native plant community is a group of native plants that interact with each other and with their environment in ways not greatly altered by modern human activity or by introduced organisms. These groups of native plants form recognizable units, such as oak savannas, pine forests, or marshes, that tend to repeat over space and time. Native plant communities are classified and described by considering vegetation, hydrology, landforms, soils, and natural disturbance regimes. Examples of natural disturbances include wildfires, severe droughts, windstorms, and floods. Twenty-seven native plant community classes were identified in the watershed, and 39,181 acres were mapped within the watershed by the Minnesota Biological Survey (See map on page 2-15). Within many of these classes, types were also identified. A comprehensive list of known native plant communities in the watershed is found in Appendix B.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 16

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 7. Presettlement Vegetation

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 17

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Native plant communities in Minnesota have been described by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the U.S. Forest Service according to an Ecological Classification System using a hierarchical system including Provinces, Sections, Subsections, and Land Type Associations. The Root River Watershed falls within the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal (MIM) and Paleozoic Plateau (PPL) subsections of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (See map on p. 21). Native plant communities in the watershed fall into 10 ecological systems as described in the Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (MNDNR 2005): Mesic Hardwood Forest, Fire Dependent Forest/Woodland, Floodplain Forest, Open Rich Peatland, Wet Forest, Cliff/Talus, River Shore, Upland Prairie, Wet Meadow/Carr, and Marsh.

Mesic Hardwood Forest (MH) communities Mesic Hardwood Forest (MH) communities are on upland sites with soils that retain water and in settings where wildfires are infrequent. These forests are characterized by continuous, often dense canopies of deciduous trees. Basswood, sugar maple, and northern red oak are the most common canopy dominants, but MH communities are characteristically mixtures of at least four tree species. Other associated or occasionally dominant tree species include American elm, bur oak, paper birch, quaking aspen, white oak, black ash, red elm, ash, bitternut hickory, black cherry, hackberry, and big-toothed aspen.

Tree mortality in older MH communities is rather constant, with stand-regenerating disturbances such as wildfires and catastrophic windthrow being uncommon. The death of established canopy trees is most often caused by windthrow or disease affecting individual trees or small patches of trees, or by other fine-scale disturbances.

The mesic hardwood forests generally occur on north to east facing slopes and on narrow valley floors. White pine is sometimes a component where there are very steep north facing slopes and/or exposed bedrock on ridge tops. Some examples of rare plants and rare animals found here as shown by the web-accessible Rare Species Guide (MNDNR 2012) include cerulean warblers, which generally require large forested tracts and closed canopy cover (WVDNR 2003), and goldenseal, a state- endangered plant that requires deep loamy soils and heavy shade. MHs39 (Southern mesic maple-basswood)forests occurring on lower to middle north-facing slopes with deep silt soils are especially significant as they support a large number of rare plant species that are intolerant to disturbances that open up the canopy. Timber species of economic value include red oak, white oak, sugar maple and black cherry to name a few. Non-timber species of economic value include morel mushrooms and ginseng. Game species that utilize these forests include wild turkey, deer and grouse. Additionally these mesic hardwood forests provide an important scenic resource from spring ephemeral wildflowers to brilliant fall foliage.

Important threats to these forests include forest fragmentation, invasive species such as buckthorn,garlic mustard, and earthworms, and heavy logging. Management focus should be on controlling invasive species, controlling site conversion to agriculture, and avoiding disturbances that cause soil erosion. These forests can thrive in the absence of active timber management; where active management is desired, care should be taken to avoid extensive canopy clearing that may result in erosion and invasion by non-native invasive plant species.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 18

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Fire-Dependent Forest/Woodland (FD) communities As the name indicates, Fire-Dependent Forest/Woodland (FD) communities are largely influenced by fire frequency and intensity. Historically, these lands burned frequently, but not enough to favor development of prairies. The vegetation of these lands was historically often sparse trees or brush, consisting of shrubs and of trees stunted by fire or resprouting after fire. Today, in the absence of fire, tree density has increased and deciduous trees and shrubs have become more common. Species that are common in FD communities include white pine, jack pine, black oak, bur oak, bitternut hickory, shagbark hickory, American elm, black walnut, and box elder.

Fire dependent forests generally occur on south to west facing slopes, ridge tops and areas with sandy loam or coarser soils. Some examples of rare plants and animals found here as shown by the web-accessible Rare Species Guide (MNDNR 2012) include northern myotis, a bat that requires natural caves and mature diverse forests to roost in during the day, and upland boneset, a state listed Threatened plant species that often borders forest openings and prairie remnants. Timber species of economic value include red oak, black oak, bur oak, and walnut to name a few. Non-timber species of economic value include morel mushrooms and hazelnuts. Game species that utilize these forests include wild turkey, deer and grouse. Additionally, because of their prairie heritage these fire-dependent forests provide an important habitat for rare prairie plants and rare prairie- brushland animals.

Important threats to these forests include forest fragmentation, fire suppression, conversion to agriculture, earthworms, and invasive species such as buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, and garlic mustard. Management focus should be on controlling invasive species, controlling site conversion to agriculture and restoring the natural fire regime.

There are two fire dependent communities within the Root River Watershed – FDs27 and FDs38. The FDs27 community is a southern dry-mesic pine-oak woodland with patchy to interrupted canopy dominated by white pine, jack pine, black oak, or bitternut hickory. The FDs38 community is a southern dry-mesic oak-hickory woodland. It is dominated by bur oak, shagbark hickory, American elm, black walnut, and box elder. FDs27 and FDs38 differ in that FDs27 is much less common and is restricted to sandy terraces, while FDs38 occurs widely on silty soils on upper south to west facing bluffs.

Floodplain Forest (FF) communities Floodplain Forest (FF) communities are present on occasionally or annually flooded sites along streams and rivers. FF communities are dominated by deciduous trees tolerant of saturated soils, prolonged inundation, and frequent erosion and deposition of sediment.

The only floodplain forest community mapped within the Root River Watershed is FFs59. The FFs59 community is a southern terrace forest present on silty or sandy alluvium on level, occasionally flooded sites along small streams to large rivers. The

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 19

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

canopy is typically dominated by American elm, green ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver maple, black ash, and cottonwood. Although floodplain forests do not cover large expanses of acreage, their roles in species and forest diversity, stream quality, and as wildlife travel corridors are important. Some examples of rare species occurring here as shown by the web-accessible Rare Species Guide (MNDNR 2012) include the Blanding’s turtle, a state listed Threatened species, snowy campion, a state listed Threatened species due to agriculture and grazing, and red shouldered hawk which requires large amounts of mature deciduous forest. Timber species of economic value include silver maple, black ash, and elm to name a few. Non- timber species of economic value include a variety of mushrooms. Many game species and nongame species utilize this community because of its proximity to water, lush herbaceous vegetation late into the summer and abundance of nesting cavities.

Important threats to these forests include forest fragmentation, conversion to agriculture, large gap openings, and invasive species such as buckthorn, garlic mustard, and earthworms. Management focus should be on controlling invasive species, controlling site conversion to agriculture, restoring native vegetation in areas that have been cleared, keeping older mature forests as such by utilizing small gap selective silviculture approaches and avoiding disturbances that cause soil erosion.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 20

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 8. Ecological Subsections

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 21

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 9. Native Plant Communities

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 22

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Cliff and Talus (CT) communities Cliff/Talus (CT) communities are present on steep-sided bluffs, along streams, on margins of bedrock ridges, and in other settings with sheer bedrock exposures. Exposures of limestone, dolomite, and sandstone are all common with temperature and moisture fluctuations varying by aspect, presence of groundwater or cold air seeps and time of day. Talus refers to a sloping deposit of large, angular fragments of rock, usually at the base of a cliff or steep slope. Algific talus slopes are cool, moist, open plant communities on steep northwest- to northeast-facing bluffs in karst landscapes characterized by cold, wet microclimate maintained by cold air and groundwater emanating from subterranean ice. A maderate cliff refers to an algific slope without talus. In the summer these cool slopes act as an air exchange with sinkholes atop the ridge. As air enters the sink or nears the cliffs it cools and flows downslope. In the winter the airflow is reversed. Spring to fall temperatures are maintained from 30- 50°F with plenty of humidity.

The vegetation of these communities is generally open with lichens and mosses often being the dominant life form. Scarcity of soils leads to less than 50% of woody cover on talus slopes and less than 25% woody cover on cliffs. Limited nutrients, wind and gravitational forces often dictate community composition and growth form, with stunted trunks and vegetative reproduction being common. Algific talus slopes and maderate cliff communities provide habitat for several vascular plant and animal species, some of which are boreal species with disjunct populations in Minnesota. A few examples include balsam fir, northern oak fern, and dwarf alder. Additionally, four different relic populations of snails (Iowa Pleistocene Ambersnail, state Endangered; Midwest Pleistocene Vertigo, state Endangered; Minnesota Pleistocene Ambersnail, state Threatened; and the Variable Pleistocene Vertigo, state Threatened) occur on Algific talus slopes and maderate cliffs. These species were once abundant during the Wisconsin glacial period; some of these species are now only found within the Root River Watershed of Minnesota. Other rare species of cliffs and talus communities as shown by the web-accessible Rare Species Guide (MNDNR 2012) include the reniform sullivantia, a plant that is state listed as Threatened and only grows on cliffs with cool water seeps and overhanging ledges, and the peregrine falcon, a bird that is state listed as Threatened and requires undeveloped cliffs for nesting.

Disturbances that shape the surrounding forests, woodlands and prairies often affect these already sensitive cliff/talus communities. Fires, windstorms or logging of surrounding communities may cause warming and drying effects. Erosion caused by flooding of nearby rivers may also impact these communities.

Important threats to these communities include quarrying, clearing of surrounding vegetation, agricultural chemicals, disruption of water and air vent systems, and invasive species. Management focus should be on controlling quarrying, invasive species, keeping a buffer of older mature forests around sensitive sites and avoiding disturbances that cause soil erosion and compaction of nearby talus, sinks, vents and fissures.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 23

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Upland Prairie (UP) communities Within the watershed, upland prairie and savanna communities are found on steep south and west facing slopes and occasionally on large deposits of sand in valleys. They are dominated by tall grasses such as big bluestem and Indian grass as well as mid height grasses such as prairie dropseed. Often taller shrubs and trees such as American hazelnut, sumac, bur oak and pin oak may also be found. The presence and recurrence of fire is a large factor in determining species composition in upland prairies and savannas with more woody vegetation encroaching in the absence of fire. Frequent fire (with the return interval of less than 10 years) is critical for the occurrence of the historical prairies and savannas of the watershed.

UPs13 (Southern dry prairie) and UPs14 (Southern dry savanna) are the most common prairie and savanna types within the watershed and are home to many rare plants and animals as shown by the web-accessible Rare Species Guide (MNDNR 2012). A few include the Henslow’s sparrow, a bird state listed as Endangered that requires uncultivated grasslands with dead stalks and perches for singing, and the timber rattlesnake, a reptile that is state listed as Threatened and requires open sites for thermoregulation and den sites for hibernation. UPs23 (Southern mesic prairie) and UPs24 (Southern mesic savanna) were common on the presettlement landscape in flat upland areas, but have been nearly eliminated by conversion to agriculture because of the rich soils associated with them. Those places where these communities do persist tend to be small remnants that support many rare plant species because so much of this habitat has been destroyed.

Important threats to these communities include fire suppression, conversion to agriculture, heavy grazing, and invasive species such as buckthorn,garlic mustard, and earthworms. Management focus should be on restoring the natural fire regime, sustainably grazing, controlling site conversion to agriculture, removing woody vegetation, and controlling invasive species. Where feasible, restoring mesic prairie and savanna to areas they formerly occupied in upland sites would contribute to lowering soil erosion, building up depleted soils, and restoring important habitat for grassland wildlife species.

Wet Meadow/Carr (WM) communities Wet meadow communities within the watershed are usually located at the bottom of a slope and are associated with ground water seepage. Often these sites have organic sediments and few trees because of such high water tables. The neutral to basic pH of the groundwater source is a result of nearby bedrock and supports a variety of sedges and grasses including tussock sedge and bluejoint grass, many forb species, and occasionally willow and other shrub species.

Rare plants and animals found in these communities as shown by the web-accessible Rare Species Guide (MNDNR 2012) including the small white lady’s-slipper, which requires an estimated 12 years to reach maturity and is negatively impacted by domestic grazing, and the Wilson’s phalarope, a wetland bird that is state listed as Threatened and requires stable levels of water within the wetland and natural vegetation maintained through prescribed burning.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 24

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Important threats to these communities include draining or alteration of wetlands, grazing, invasive species, agricultural chemicals, and fire suppression. Management focus in these areas should be on maintaining or restoring natural hydrologic systems, controlling invasive species such as buckthorn, controlling grazing, and using prescribed fire to restore natural vegetation structure.

E. Rare Natural Features

MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance The Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) is a Minnesota DNR program within the Division of Ecological and Water Resources with the goal of identifying significant natural areas and collecting and interpreting data on the distribution and ecology of rare plants, rare animals, and native plant communities. Data collected by MBS are entered into the Natural Heritage Information System, managed by the DNR's Division of Ecological and Water Resources. As a result of this systematic survey, the relative ecological importance of natural areas and representative ecological landscapes can be assessed.

Following the initial mapping of native plant communities from aerial photos in each county, MBS ecologists delineated sites of biodiversity significance that helped to geographically organize the data. Within the Root River Watershed, MBS identified 508 sites of biodiversity significance encompassing 166,185 acres (see map on p. 27). Following field surveys of native plant communities and searches for rare species (see below for more details), the sites were ranked according to the presence of rare species populations, the size and condition of native plant communities within the site, and the landscape context of the site (for example, whether the site is isolated in a landscape dominated by cropland or developed land, or whether it is connected or close to other areas with intact native plant communities). For a complete listing of the ranking criteria see attached Appendix A.

There are four biodiversity significance ranks - outstanding, high, moderate, and below:

"Outstanding" sites contain the best occurrences of the rarest species, the most outstanding examples of the rarest native plant communities, and/or the largest, most ecologically intact or functional landscapes.

"High" sites contain very good quality occurrences of the rarest species, high-quality examples of rare native plant communities, and/or important functional landscapes.

"Moderate" sites contain occurrences of rare species, moderately disturbed native plant communities, and/or landscapes that have strong potential for recovery of native plant communities and characteristic ecological processes.

"Below" sites lack occurrences of rare species and natural features or do not meet MBS standards for outstanding, high, or moderate rank. These sites may include areas of conservation value at the local level, such as habitat for native plants and Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 25

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

animals, corridors for animal movement, buffers surrounding higher-quality natural areas, areas with high potential for restoration of native habitat, or open space.

Ecologists with the Ecological and Water Resources Division have written extensive ecological evaluations for 10 areas within the Root River Watershed. These areas include one or more sites of outstanding or high biodiversity significance, and have been proposed for special protection and management. They include summaries and details about the rare natural features in the areas as well as some general management and protection recommendations.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 26

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 10. Sites of Biological Diversity

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 27

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Rare Plant and Animal Species The Blufflands contain a higher number of state-listed rare species than any other subsection: 172 species, 39% of all rare species in the state. There are 111 species of state-listed rare plants and animals in the watershed. This makes the Root River watershed an extremely important place for biodiversity in the state, and protection of rare species is a high priority.

Prairies account for 29% of all the rare plant and animal habitats, of which 30 species are found in dry prairies alone. Add to the prairies the 13 species that frequent fire-dependent forests and it becomes clear that activities such as prescribed burning are necessary in sustaining the habitats of more than one third (36%) of all rare plants and animals in the watershed. Mesic hardwood forests are also significant as 37 (one fifth of the total) different rare plants and animals are found in these types. An additional 21 species are found in floodplain forest types, 10 in sedge meadows and 9 in algific talus slopes.

Some plant and animal species are designated as Endangered or Threatened at the state or federal level or designated as a species of SpecialCconcern by the state of Minnesota. See Appendix C for a listing of the state listed species in the watershed.

The three categories are defined as:

“Endangered” plants and animals are threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges in Minnesota.

“Threatened” plants and animals are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges in Minnesota.

“Special Concern” plants and animals are extremely uncommon in Minnesota, or have unique or highly specific habitat requirements, and deserve careful monitoring. Species on the periphery of their ranges that are not listed as threatened may be included in this category along with those species that were once threatened or endangered but now have increasing or protected, stable populations.

The Minnesota DNR tracks occurrences of state-listed rare species in the Natural Heritage Information System. Furthermore, the Natural Heritage Information System also tracks data for “non” or nonlisted species. These are species that fall into one of the following categories: the species is being considered for addition to the state list; the species was removed from the state list but records for the species are still entered and maintained as a precautionary measure; the species has been recently discovered in the state; the species is presumed to be extirpated from the state.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 28

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

F. Wildlife

Terrestrial The Root River watershed is home to some of the best white tailed deer habitat in Minnesota. Other mammals such as gray fox, red fox, coyotes, raccoons, woodchucks, squirrels, weasels, and badgers are found throughout the hills and valleys of the area. It is quite common to see blue herons, egrets, and wood ducks moving about the river's edge, as the watershed supports over 40 species of birds. Raptors in the area include red-tailed hawks, osprey, turkey vultures, and bald eagles. Wooded shores harboring river otters and beaver can also be found. Lizards such as the skink, racerunner, and many species of snakes can be found along the banks and outcrops.

Aquatic There are many species of warm water fish inhabiting the Root River watershed including smallmouth bass, channel catfish, rock bass, sunfish, and crappies. Warm water tributaries, dependent on runoff, may join the main stream as it gradually changes from a trout stream to a warm water river harboring walleye, northern pike, bass and catfish. Many of the cold water streams are known to have trout.

Streams within the watershed are mostly spring fed with cool temperatures and steady flow. Unlike trout streams in northern Minnesota that are more acidic, local limestone in the drainage makes these hard-water streams alkaline and very productive. Caddisflies, mayflies, and midges have frequent hatches in cool, spring-fed streams, such as the Root River, and provide a favorable food source for trout. Several species of caddisflies present are unique to the watershed (Houghton, et al 2001).

Frequent insect hatches provide ample food for trout. Although not native, brown trout are well suited to this area and are valued by anglers. Brook trout are also present.

In streams with limited natural reproduction and spawning habitat, the trout fishery is maintained by stocking. Some tributaries do, however, support self-sustaining populations of trout. The Root River system contains brook trout that are believed to have remnant genetics. Most brook trout populations in other parts of southeast Minnesota can be traced to strains stocked from other eastern states like Michigan. Brown trout can also be found in the clearer and colder spring-fed streams, as well as the western end of the South Branch.

Designated trout streams can be found in areas with high quality, cold water streams. These streams have been designated because they have been stocked with trout that are native to them and to regulate angling activities. Designation also requires anglers to have a trout stamp validation and a fishing or sports license when fishing in these trout streams. There are over 400 miles of designated coldwater trout streams in the watershed and many more where trout can be found.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 29

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Additionally, trout stream easements are a permanent legal contract where the landowner must allow public fishing along with DNR habitat improvement activities along a stream corridor in return for payment. Although an easement cannot guarantee catching more trout, it does promote sustainable, active conservation for streams with the most potential for improvement. Public funding cannot be used to improve trout streams (including stocking) that are not accessible to everyone.

Easements are an effective tool in the starting and promoting of conservation of this habitat that is unique to the state; however, trout streams still have challenges. Fence-to-fence grain farming on the uplands and pasturing of the river bottoms contribute to land erosion and sedimentation of the streambeds. This fine sediment covers the gravel runs and riffles that trout need to spawn and invertebrates need to survive. The clearing of shoreline trees takes away the underwater root wads and fallen trees in which trout find cover from currents and predators. Finally, many of these streams simply are not very large, and large trout find little cover.

Species in Greatest Conservation Need Of particular importance are the animal species in greatest conservation need (SGCN) that are found here. SGCN are defined as native animals whose populations are rare, declining, or vulnerable to decline and are below levels desirable to ensure their long- term health and stability. Some of these receive protection under the state listing as ‘Endangered’, ‘Threatened’, or ‘species of Special Concern’ while some SGCNs do not receive such protection. Minnesota’s SGCN list includes 292 native animal species. The Minnesota DNR has found that 152 of these occur within the Blufflands subsection, higher than in any other subsection in the state. See attached Appendix D for a comprehensive listing of Blufflands subsection SGCN, along with their associated habitats and state and federal rarity listings.

Key Habitats are defined as those habitats most important to the greatest number of SGCN in a subsection. By alerting resource managers and the public to SGCN and Key Habitats, activities can be reviewed and prioritized to complement Minnesota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.

The Key Habitats within the Blufflands subsection include: oak savanna, prairie, non-forested wetlands, shoreline-dunes- cliff/talus, river-headwater to large, and river-very large (Mississippi River). Within these habitats the two main problems facing species are habitat loss and habitat degradation. Oak savanna and prairie habitats, for example, host some 40 and 41 (respectively) SGCNs and have declined by more than 50% in land cover between 1890 and 1990. Habitat decline is significant because as in the case of prairies and shoreline-dune-cliff/talus habitats there are at least 15 species present, 20% of which use two or fewer habitats. These specialist species are unable to utilize other habitats. Others, like the stream habitats, are used by 35-51 SGCNs but have suffered from pollution problems. Forests were not listed as Key Habitats in the Blufflands because the total amount of forest cover has not changed since pre-settlement times; however forests do provide important habitat for many SGCN species in the Blufflands.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 30

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Conservation actions outlined in Minnesota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy include maintaining, enhancing and protecting these Key Habitats. The table below (Table 2-1) shows specific actions that have been outlined to address the two largest problems of habitat loss and degradation of SGCN habitat.

Table 1. Key Habitats for SGCN in the Blufflands subsection and conservation strategies

Oak savanna habitat Native prairie habitat Nonforested wetland habitat -manage invasive species -manage invasive species -enforce the Wetlands Conservation Act -maintain by prescribed fire and -maintain by prescribed fire and -provide technical assistance and other activities other activities protection opportunities -encourage oak savanna restoration -manage adjacent grasslands -manage adjacent wetlands -provide technical assistance and -provide technical assistance and protection opportunities protection opportunities -encourage restoration

Cliff and bluff habitat Stream habitat -protection from development -maintain good water quality, hydrology, etc -enhance cliffs and bluffs -maintain and enhance riparian areas -provide technical assistance and -provide technical assistance and protection opportunities protection opportunities

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 31

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

G. Historic Cultural Resources

Background The Root River watershed area has been a passageway for cultures heading northward. The ‘Mississippian Tradition,’ a group of cultures arising in southeastern North America (primarily the central-lower Mississippi Valley), moved northward through the area around 900 to 1000 A.D. The people used the fertile bottomland as farm land and built terraces on the land above the river. During the European Exploration in the 1640’s, France claimed the surrounding area as part of the “New World”. It was bought from France in 1803 by the newly established United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase. Native Dakota Indians inhabited the area until the Treaty of Traverse de Sioux mandated their relocation in 1852. At this time, expansion increased and stands of hardwoods were cleared while fields were cultivated. The area’s environment was negatively impacted by the development of water resources and land being poorly managed, leading to destructive erosion. In time, the inhabitants of southeastern Minnesota saw the need for wiser land use. The state established the Minnesota Memorial Hardwood Forest in the 1960’s (now known as the Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood Forest) with the intent to protect and reforest tracts of land in southeast Minnesota.

There are numerous prehistoric archaeological sites far removed from the Root River. Many of these are around the tops of ravines or coulees, where ancient hunters would wait for game coming out of the wooded river valley. There is also some evidence of archaeological sites on high ridges dividing drainages, where American Indians likely gathered cobbles to use for stone tools (Trow 1981). Areas of particularly high prehistoric site potential seem to be stream to stream junctions. Uplands overlooking the Root River, especially those' adjacent to ravines also have high potential for having sites. Many of the larger prehistoric sites appear to be located on the first terrace of the Root River. Burial mounds are also typically found along larger rivers, elevated well above the floodplain.

Given this rich history and potential one would expect to find a variety of sites of high culture significance. A list of documented sites within the watershed includes: mills, sawmills, burial mounds, railroad camps, and prehistoric cave sites. For example, parts of the present day Root River Bike Trail encompassed prehistoric travel routes along the Root River. Over time a historic stagecoach line was developed and later became the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad bed (Minnesota State Archaeologist’s Office 1979).

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 32

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

H. Land Use History

The Root River Watershed had a long history of use by native people, who grew crops, set fires, and impacted the land in many ways over the years that they lived in the area. Following European settlement in the 1800’s, changes in the landscape accelerated greatly. Increasingly large portions of the flat, fertile portions of the lands were converted to agriculture, and steeper areas were generally used as pastures. In more recent decades, housing development has spread and also impacted the land. Fire has largely been excluded from most of the landscape, resulting in large changes in fire-dependent plant communities.

Another change associated with human settlement patterns is the shifts in large mammals that have lived in the area. Before European settlement, bison and elk were common; although their effects on the species composition and structure of plant communities are not well understood, these large grazing animals would certainly have had important impacts on natural vegetation. As these animals were eliminated, confined livestock grazing became common. This kind of concentrated grazing has often led to increases in shrubs such as eastern red cedar and sumac in prairies and oak savannas, increases in prickly ash and buckthorn in forests and woodland, and increases in invasive non-native plants in all plant communities. Heavily grazed oak savannas have generally converted to closed woodlands with dense shrub cover after livestock were removed (Chapman et al 1993). In addition, deer have increased in density, with consequent increases in herbivory of ground layers and tree seedlings in forests.

Prior to European settlement, soil erosion was not a significant problem because thick sod absorbed much of the rainfall and reduced the rate at which the water ran off the land surface. Intensive farming removed the sod cover, increased the speed of rainwater runoff, and exposed the light loess soils to erosion. Rainwater here moves rapidly downslope through the carbonate bedrock; consequently, flooding is a problem for communities along the major streams in southeast Minnesota during periods of extremely heavy rainfall. Thick layers (7-8 feet) of silt eroded from fields on the uplands during heavy rainfall have been deposited near the mouths of tributaries along major stream valleys.

One of these major flood events occurred in 2007. The Root River is typically at about a 3.5 foot level in Houston. During the catastrophic floods of August 2007, the Root River crested at 18 feet in Houston. The twenty-four hour rainfall report for August 18-19 was between 15 and 18 inches, far exceeding previous rainfall records. About 75 homes were flooded in Fillmore County from the flooding of the Root River. The flood was very severe and it has been calculated that a similar occurrence would be on a once in every 500-1000 year interval.

Trends Agriculture remains the dominant land use in southeast Minnesota (see map on p. 35). Recent trends toward fewer and larger farms, resulting in increased field size, more soybean acreage, and decreasing acreage of forage, small grain, and pasture are being witnessed throughout the region and are a concern to some residents of southeast Minnesota. Rural residential

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 33

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

development and development in and around municipalities is projected to continue at or faster than the rates of the previous 20 years (Curry, 2002). Potential impacts to water quality from these trends include: increased runoff, reduced base flow, thermal pulses, and increased sedimentation, nutrient, and chemical inputs. Climate change is expected to make the region warmer and drier and will likely exacerbate these impacts to coldwater streams (Kling, et al. 2003).

Historically mature hardwood forests of oak, elm, walnut, and other tree species covered the stream bottoms and hillsides (Curtis-Wedge 1919). Many of the floodplain areas have been harvested and cleared for agriculture. In some areas where oak was once predominant, reduced oak regeneration has resulted from heavy past grazing, poorly planned harvesting techniques and fire suppression. As a result many sites currently have more cover by shade tolerant trees and shrubs than before. Non-native invasive species such as buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle often invade sites disturbed by past grazing and become dominant, reducing oak regeneration and overall diversity of these plant communities. Herbaceous non-native invasive species such as garlic mustard are increasingly spreading throughout many sites, dominating ground layers and further reducing diversity. Fire suppression has been a primary threat to oak forests, oak savannas, and prairies in the Root River watershed. As a result of fire exclusion, woody cover has increased including several invasive species.

Most of the flat upland prairies and oak savannas that once dominated the landscape as well as many floodplains have been converted to row crops as a result of their high fertility. This has resulted in runoff and erosion that has led to unnaturally flashy flooding cycles, polluted streams and rivers, and impaired habitat for aquatic species.

Many of these prairies and savannas that have persisted have suffered from overgrazing and fire suppression and have been invaded by eastern red cedar, sumac, and other hardwood trees and shrubs, as well as invasive non-native herbaceous plants. The reduced fire frequency has also resulted in impacts to the habitat of plant and animal species requiring open habitats such as the timber rattlesnake. Timber rattlesnake requires open prairies for thermoregulation and summer feeding grounds, often traveling from bluff prairie to bluff prairie. As these prairies have become overrun with more woody vegetation and bluff tops have been developed, suitable habitat has become very limited.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 34

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 11. Land Cover

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 35

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

I. Current Land Uses

The Root River Watershed provides some of the more outstanding outdoor recreational opportunities in the state and two state parks (Beaver Creek Valley and Forestville/Mystery Cave) add to the region’s attractiveness. These state parks provide many opportunities for camping, fishing, and hiking. Tourism provides many local jobs as well as significant economic contributions for the small rural communities in the Root River area. Visitors are drawn to the area for the beautiful scenery they can enjoy while enjoying activities such as hiking, fishing, camping, and water recreating. Being so close to Rochester, these communities offer many bed and breakfast retreats. Several orchards and wineries are also sprinkled throughout the communities.

The paved 42 mile Root River State Trail connects the communities of Fountain, Preston, Lanesboro, Whalan, Peterson, Rushford and Houston. It crosses dozens of bridges over the Root River and its tributaries, with views of the area’s limestone cliffs, wooded bluffs, fields, as well as hawks, turkeys, eagles and other wildlife. While the majority of the trail is relatively level, the hills between Rushford and Houston provide a challenging workout. Whether bicycle riding, walking, or inline skating, the Root River State Trail provides the perfect setting. The trail is also available to cross country skiers in the winter season.

The Root River has excellent water recreation opportunities, including canoeing, kayaking and tubing. Depending on the adventure level, various routes are available, providing rippling, white water or a relaxing, meandering current. There are many public canoe launch areas available and also several equipment rental and shuttle locations.

Many individuals in the Root River area commute to the community of Rochester, Minnesota and La Crosse, Wisconsin for employment. Others find employment locally in tourism, agriculture, logging, and industry such as saw mills and grain elevators to name a few. The population of the watershed is 43,600 with a median household income of approximately $41,478 annually.

Of the 1,030,149 privately own acres, 69,275 acres have had some level of natural resource planning performed on them (see map on p. 35, although it is unclear how many have had activities recommended through the planning process actually carried out. Currently there are 29,880 acres with natural resource plans that are less than 10 years old, leaving 39,395 acres with plans greater than 10 years old.

Economic Impact The natural resources within the Root River Watershed often carry a sizeable market value. For example, rural land values for Houston and Fillmore counties from 2009-2012 average $2490 per acre while timber land values exceed $2600 per acre. Since 2009 these prices have steadily decreased. The price of forested land is influenced by the goods and services related to it, some Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 36

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

of which are easily traded and have a market value, such as timber. Other benefits received from the land do not have established markets and are difficult to value.

The roots of American ginseng, a perennial herb found in mesic hardwood forests, have been so highly sought after that in the 1970s international treaty due to dwindling populations lead to the regulation of their export. Currently this species is listed as a Species of Special Concern. In addition to obtaining a dealer’s license for buying wild ginseng from harvesters, other regulations apply including a specific harvest season. Prices for ginseng have extreme variability from year to year (from $20- $60 per pound to $1000 per pound) depending on the plants abundance.

Many seasonal mushrooms of the watershed such as morels are harvested for personal use and sold to restaurants and wholesalers. Morels can be found near dying elm trees in the spring, are highly sensitive to the weather and may be sold at local and even national markets.

Of the native plant community types, the mesic hardwood forests tend to produce the greatest timber merchantability. Because the mesic forests are on upland sites on moderate to well drained soils, they do not have the access constraints that the wetland forest and floodplain forests have. This contributes to easier access for logging equipment, which keeps logging costs lower.

The mesic sites also tend to produce better timber merchantability than the fire dependent communities. This is because mesic sites tend to have higher densities of merchantable timber than the fire dependent sites.

In terms of merchantable species and products, black walnut and red oak saw logs and veneer are the primary drivers. Although oak markets have declined marginally in the past few years, oak saw logs are still a sought after product. Black walnut markets have remained fairly consistent. Black walnut veneer continues to be the most prized forest product in terms of merchantable timber resource. Within the Root River Watershed, there are nine individuals/businesses that are listed on the “Division of Forestry, Southern Timber Buyers List, April 2012” as either a logger or a mill operation.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 37

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Figure 12. Conservation Land Ownership

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 38

Section 2 –Inventory & Assessment

Often times the marketable value of timber is unknowingly assigned a higher importance over less marketable values such as the need to sustain rare species, spring ephemerals and SGCN. One example of this is a where a logging operation becomes more profitable due to an excessively large cutting area in old timber at the detriment of cerulean warbler habitat. Conflict of value may also present itself when a logging road passes through a cultural resource such as burial mounds.

Since land within the watershed is very fertile, market values for farmland exceed that of rural and timberland. Agricultural land values for Houston and Fillmore counties from 2009-2012 average more than $3,500 per acre. Since 2009 these prices have been more steadily increasing than the timberland value has decreased. There are an estimated 3,027 farms in the watershed. Approximately fifty seven percent of the operations are less than 180 acres in size, thirty nine percent are from 180 to 1000 acres in size, and the remaining farms are greater than 1000 acres in size. Major cash crops include corn and soybeans.

The Root River watershed is rich in sand and limestone resources and produces crushed rock for building and concrete out of its many quarries. Of recent interest is the abundance of silica sand or “frac sand” (sand used during hydraulic fracturing of rock to mine for natural gas). Unfortunately all of these types of mining activities permanently change the landscape and ecosystems that were previously in those locations. Quarrying, depending on location, could pose a direct threat to endangered snails such as the Midwest Pleistocene Ambersnail which inhabits cliff and talus habitats.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 39

Section 3 – Key Findings

Section 3: Key Findings: Assets, Issues and Opportunities

This chapter provides assets, issues and opportunities found in the watershed as they relate at different scales. Watershed health is a very broad scale while Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA) have been delineated as more focused localities and high biodiversity habitats are specific sites or features. It should be noted that some assets, issues and opportunities relate to multiple levels of scale.

A. Assets

Watershed Health  The Root River and its tributaries  Karst topography  Diverse ecological landscape  Coldwater fishery  Private forests providing habitat and forest products  Root River Bike Trail- draws tourists and promotes local economies  High quality oak forests  Wildlife valued for hunting and trapping  Extensive research– over the past decade there have been extensive efforts on sustainable forestry, forest management, and survey of rare natural features  Multiple agency presence

Areas With Opportunities for Conservation State Lands (potential for expansion of ownership or increased restoration/management)  Forestville Mystery Cave State Park  Beaver Creek Valley State Park  Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood Forest  Cherry Grove Blind Valley Scientific and Natural Area (SNA)  Mound Prairie SNA  Pin Oak Prairie SNA  Racine Prairie SNA  Rushford Sand Barrens SNA  Wild Indigo Prairie SNA  Wykoff Balsam Fir SNA Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 40

Section 3 – Key Findings

Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs)

High Biodiversity Habitat  Rare plant and animal species  Diverse native plant communities  Algific talus slopes and maderate cliffs  Decorah Shale edge wetlands

B. Issues

Watershed Health Degrading water quality – Loss of native plant communities, expansion of intensive row crop agriculture and loss of riparian buffers has affected the watershed’s water quality and volume.

The Root River is listed as impaired water due to fecal coliform bacteria levels and turbidity levels, as well as elevated nitrate in six Class 1B coldwater streams useable as drinking water sources with disinfection. Bacteria and turbidity limit recreation and aquatic life within the watershed. For example, throughout the watershed 47% of the assessed stream units by MPCA are considered non-supporting of aquatic life and/or recreation. Of those units, 82% are non-supporting of aquatic life and 34% are non-supporting of aquatic recreation. These impairments were scattered across the watershed with both coldwater and warm water streams having nearly the same amount of impairments.

A large portion of the biological impairments was focused on the larger bodies of water within the watershed revealing that high turbidity levels are the major stressor to the fish and especially invertebrate communities. The turbidity TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) study has been completed for the watershed. Results from sediment fingerprinting studies indicate that there is still a large percentage of sediment coming from upland sources versus near stream sources in some sub-watersheds.

Aquatic recreation impairments are due to elevated levels of E. coli being present throughout the watershed. A regional fecal coliform bacteria TMDL study has been completed for the Lower Mississippi basin, which includes the Root River. The two major sources of bacteria are from malfunctioning individual septic systems and animal manure either from feedlot runoff or manure applications to fields.

Nitrate concentrations have been steadily increasing in both surface and ground water. The nitrate impairments in the Root River watershed are based on the safe drinking water standard of 10 parts per million (ppm) since Class 1B coldwater streams have a designated use as drinking water sources. Studies have shown that nitrate levels even lower than 10 ppm can impact

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 41

Section 3 – Key Findings

aquatic life. The major source of nitrate in the water is nitrogen fertilizer mainly for agricultural use since over 60% of the watershed is in agricultural production.

Due to the karst geology, land uses that increase runoff and pollutant transport can also contribute to ground water contamination. Sinkholes are a direct conduit to water table aquifers that bypass the soil filtration system. The combination of sinkholes and the shallow soils overlying the fractured limestone bedrock provide the right combination of factors for effective nitrate transport into the surficial aquifer from which many shallow domestic wells draw their water. Nitrate contamination is common in older, poorly constructed wells. Results from the SE MN Volunteer Nitrate Monitoring Network show 17% of the wells in Fillmore County with nitrate concentrations over the drinking water standard of 10 ppm. Dye trace studies in heavily karsted areas of the watershed show a direct connection between sinkholes and the springs that provide much of the flow for the trout streams in the watershed, over 230 miles of which are in Fillmore County alone. Nitrate levels as low as 6 ppm increase trout embryo mortality and can also affect the development of other aquatic organisms. Nitrate contributes to the growth of aquatic plants and algae, which, when they die and decompose, deplete oxygen in the water which can lead to fish kills and negative impacts to other organisms in the water.

Altered hydrology – The functionality of the floodplains and wetlands has been altered due to conversion of perennial vegetation to croplands and has caused erosion and increased peak flows

Hydrology has been altered due to past and current land use that reduces water infiltration and moves water downstream more quickly. Various practices have contributed to erosion, such as intensive row crop production, poor pasture management, and loss of perennial vegetation. Sediment deposition in stream valleys leads to an alteration in the functionality of flood plains where up to 50% of sediments can settle out and be removed from flood waters. Ag tile drainage, up to a point, can help to reduce surface runoff and erosion. However, tile drainage moves water downstream more quickly contributing to higher peak flows, exacerbating streambank erosion, another significant source of sediment. Because nitrate dissolves in and moves with water, tile drainage increases the rate at which nitrate moves through the soil profile and into streams and rivers bypassing the denitrification processes that can happen in the soil.

Lack of awareness – There is a general lack of knowledge about the importance of native plant communities and ways to maintain or enhance them. In terms of natural resource management, using native plant communities to direct activities is a relatively new science.

Lack of awareness – There is a lack of understanding about the history of Minnesota’s forests and methods to sustainably manage them.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 42

Section 3 – Key Findings

Privately owned lands – The majority of the forests in the watershed are located on privately owned lands. To reach and motivate private landowners, various approaches are necessary.

Changing land ownership patterns – Forestland parcels are decreasing in size.

Non-native vegetation along Root River and tributary stream banks – Reduces wild and scenic appeal to anglers, hunters and tourists.

Need for perennial vegetation in riparian areas – Most of the regional plans summarized call for increased perennial vegetation restoration along stream banks, riparian buffers and floodplains although little is being accomplished on the ground.

Non-native vegetation along Root River Bike Trail –Reduces wild and scenic appeal to tourists.

Areas with Opportunities for Conservation

Habitat fragmentation – Rural residential development pressure and agricultural production pressure reduces contiguous native habitat.

Habitat fragmentation has been a significant challenge to natural resource management. As more and more land is converted to agriculture land or developed, native habitat land has declined. This has directly reduced all native habitats for a wide variety of plants and animals. As an example, forest cover has reduced by 60% in southeast Minnesota Counties during the past 100 years.

Reduced habitat quality – Over grazing, spread of invasive species and disruption of natural disturbance cycles degrades habitat.

Invasive species such as buckthorn, honeysuckle, multi-flora rose and garlic mustard are multiplying in areas that have been altered from their natural state. Additionally, native and naturalized shrub species such as eastern red cedar and prickly ash are also occupying once open land. Such alterations in oak savanna and prairie types include fire suppression and over grazing. In fire dependent forest, floodplain forests and mesic hardwood forests repeated logging and fire suppression creates similar degradation. In algific cliff and bluff communities, quarrying and extensive logging has also reduced habitat quality. Reduced habitat quality has resulted in the reduced abundance and diversity of native species. The suppression of fire from its natural boundaries has led to a decrease of native oak-savanna, fire-dependent woodlands and prairies as a whole. It has also reduced the rate of natural oak regeneration.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 43

Section 3 – Key Findings

Uncoordinated public efforts – Landowners are often unaware of the technical assistance resources available to them. As a result, some technical assistance is underutilized by some segments of the population. Greater collaboration between agencies and NGOs would lead to greater efficiency in conservation.

Many landowners are not aware of, or confused by the various programs of government cost share. Such examples include funding from the NRCS such as EQIP (mentioned above) or the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), in addition to grants from the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD). Other potential funding sources include the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association (MDHA) and occasional state cost share programs. Often times when one fund is no longer available, the landowner assumes that all funding is unavailable. Consistent and stable funding for standard conservation practice is important for long-term landowner engagement.

There has been much interest in the protection and conservation of the Root River Watershed as shown in the Summaries of Existing Regional Plans described in Appendix E. A lack of long term funding has resulted in little meaningful action to carry out those plans.

Conflicting goals – Within and between agencies and levels of government can deter activity. For instance, many land owners are concerned about invasive species out competing native, productive species (such as oak and walnut) on their property. The government incentive programs mentioned above, however, tend to focus on other forest practices that may not prioritize management of invasive species.

Decreasing forestland parcels – There is a need for utilization of small lot management and education for small woodlot landowners.

Lack of protection – The vast majority of natural areas in the watershed are not effectively conserved.

Lack of natural fire regime – Areas that were once treasured for their beauty and openness have filled in with brush.

Fire has been significantly reduced and the structure of fire dependent communities has been altered. Sites that were previously open-grown have filled in with brush, higher densities of overstory trees, and invasive species.

Lack of public support for natural areas – Lack of support leads to development on riparian and upland forests.

Although the public is concerned about natural resources and maintaining them for the future, the economics of getting a return on beef production is more easily perceived than the value of protecting a venomous reptile. This has been shown in areas where overgrazing has reduced the quality of oak savannas and upland prairies.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 44

Section 3 – Key Findings

Difficulty maintaining oak as an important component of some plant communities – Disruption of natural disturbance patterns reduces quality tree regeneration.

Oak was once a much more dominant component of forested plant communities. To reestablish and maintain oak as an important component, site-appropriate regeneration techniques should be used.

Lack of stable funding – Lack of incentives for landowners leads to inconsistent project implementation

Although limited information and planning is available for some sites of high biological significance, a lack of stable funding and consistent project oversight has proven to be a challenge. For example, many MCBS sites have guidelines but because such a large extent is in private ownership, implementation has been challenging.

High Biodiversity Habitat

Lack of understanding of rare plant and animal habitat – Continued degradation and potential loss of species may occur without actions being taken.

Degrading white pine-hardwood forest communities – No measures are in place to maintain these rare forest types on private land.

C. Opportunities

Watershed Health

Improve water quality by increasing riparian buffer widths, increasing conservation tillage incentives, increasing perennial vegetation, restoring over grazed pastureland, and karst feature protection (sinkhole buffers). Practices can be utilized to reduce nitrate levels and to mitigate its transport, such as rate and timing of fertilizer application, the use of cover crops to capture nutrients outside the growing season, bioreactors to remove nitrate, and nitrogen inhibitors to slow nitrate movement.

Restore the hydrology by restoring perennial vegetation to reduce runoff, restoring wetlands for reducing peak flows and filtering contaminants, implementing cover crops, “no till”, and other agricultural practices that promote water infiltration and control erosion, and restoring floodplain connectivity. Strategically placed buffers can increase water infiltration and nitrogen removal.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 45

Section 3 – Key Findings

Invest in stream restoration. Recreational angling is an important economic driver within the watershed. For every dollar spent on stream restoration an additional $24.50 is returned to the regional economy each year thereafter (Trout Unlimited 2008). Clean water, resilient streams, and healthy fish populations help support a thriving economy. Maintaining existing trout streams is a must.

Improve awareness of native plant communities. Further research and documentation of these communities will only add to successful restoration of sensitive sites. In areas where native plant communities have already been mapped, they have been an invaluable tool in planning and implementing proper management techniques.

Improve awareness of proper forest management through stewardship planning and education.

Increase commitment through further coordination and planning agreements.

Encourage private landowners using multiple approaches.

Influence land ownership patterns to become more contiguous.

Improve riparian vegetation by removing invasive species and keeping the riparian vegetation in a wild and natural state that has a larger appeal to anglers and paddlers.

Improve trailside vegetation. Controlling invasive species along well known trails keeps them in a wild and natural state that has a larger appeal to cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts. It also slows the spread of invasive species to other parts of the watershed.

Areas with Opportunities for Conservation

Prevent future habitat fragmentation by continuing to support conservation easements and other land protection measures.

Decrease habitat degradation by having a known, mapped area of the distribution of the invasive species. In addition, a treatment plan that outlines tactical approaches for controlling the invasive species would prove cost effective. These plans should be site specific and address the conservation of rare species in them.

Improve existing public conservation efforts through coordination. In order to produce meaningful action from the effort and time that organizations mentioned in Appendix E have already expended, funding for management needs to be secured. This funding will be best utilized if it is allocated on a long term basis rather than in short term intervals. For example, fluctuating

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 46

Section 3 – Key Findings

cost share amounts limit landowners’ abilities to do oak savanna restoration, prescribed burning to maintain invasive-free prairies, forest stewardship planning, and timber stand improvement.

Improve existing public conservation efforts through coordination. Simplicity of process and contacts is also a must if a landowner is to get connected to funding sources. A central contact to communicate the various funding programs for the landowners will simplify this process.

Improve small parcel forest utilization through stewardship planning.

Protect natural areas.

Restore natural fire regime to fire dependent communities. Creating an inventory and map of native fire dependent communities is a key step in restoring the natural fire regime, as well as identifying natural historic boundaries.

Increase public support of natural areas. More funding is needed to provide a return to the landowners of significant sites. Alternatively, social marketing techniques could be funded to encourage better perception of rare and declining habitats and species of greatest concern. Local residents can be informed of the role natural areas serve in mitigating flooding, attracting visitors and the overall contribution to quality of life and regional identity

Maintain oak as an important species in communities. Oak regeneration can be encouraged through stewardship planning and restoration of fire on dependent sites. Prescribed fire on a pre and post-harvest schedule will enhance natural regeneration.

Continue existing funding. During 2012, federal assistance for Minnesota forest landowners was made available through the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). The funding is through the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). Forest landowners were eligible to apply for qualifying projects to be partially funded. One million dollars were allotted for forestry practices in 2012 and many projects were implemented.

Increase project implementation by stabilizing funding. Increasing funding sources and project direction through technical assistance for landowners would encourage the implementation of the guidelines. Ways should be found to broaden these approaches to other ownerships, including private landowners.

High Biodiversity Habitat Understand rare plant and animal habitat through protection and further study. More information is needed in order to effectively manage these sites. Sites of high biodiversity significance should continue to be carefully managed and further studied, as there is still much to learn. As further knowledge is gained, a concerted effort should be made to document such

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 47

Section 3 – Key Findings

findings. This will ensure that the knowledge is preserved for future generations. For example on algific talus slopes and maderate cliffs, no activities should be planned in order to preserve these rare features. In other communities, diversity should be maintained through protection and through sustainable management that mimics natural disturbance regimes.

Maintain white pine-hardwood forest communities. While the MBS mapped the highest quality areas of these and other native plant communities on private and public lands, there are other significant occurrences that did not meet MBS minimal quality for mapping. In an effort to maintain and enhance these rare habitats on private land, it would prove valuable to have native plant communities on private lands comprehensively surveyed and mapped.

D. Current Benchmarks of Success  Completion of Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan (this document).  Completion of two Conservation Opportunity Area Plans (Forestville and Pine Creek-Rushford, located in this document).  Minnesota Audubon is working on a proposal for Important Bird Area (IBA) designation.  465 acres were added to Forestville State Park in 2011.  A 190-acre site near Hokah was protected by conservation easements in 2011, with portions designated Native Prairie Bank and others Minnesota Land Trust.  A proposal was submitted to the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) in 2011 for acquisition of land by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and easements by the Minnesota Land Trust (but not funded).  A proposal is currently being drafted by multiple partners to submit to the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) to protect significant lands in conservation corridors through purchase of conservation easements.  Grant application was submitted to the State Wildlife Program in 2011 in collaboration with Iowa and Wisconsin DNRs to restore prairies, savanna, and woodland habitats on private and public lands, and funding was obtained. Work to begin in 2012.  A National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grant was awarded to Land Stewardship Project with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) partnership.  Bluff prairie restoration efforts on state lands have been ongoing for many years, led by the DNR Nongame Wildlife Specialist.  Driftless Area State Wildlife Grant (SWG) grant described earlier will include public lands.  Prescribed burning of prairie, savanna, and forest has been conducted by DNR Forestry in the Money Creek Bluffs site and by DNR Parks and Trails in Forestville State Park and will continue in 2012.  The Nature Conservancy has been appropriated Outdoor Heritage Funds for Protection and Restoration in the Root River  New DNR effort is in progress in 2012 to relocate many rare plant locations and some rare animal locations on proposed High Conservation Value Forests on state forest and wildlife land, collect data, and set up monitoring programs.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 48

Section 4 –Vision and DFCs

Part 2: Where do we want to go?

Section 4: Vision and Desired Future Conditions

A. Vision

This watershed plan endorses the overall vision statement for the Root River developed by the Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM):

Our vision is of a Root River Watershed with safe drinking water from its aquifers, surface water that supports a thriving aquatic ecosystem, balanced land uses that support healthy, resilient and diverse terrestrial ecosystems, safe and exhilarating recreation opportunities, together with a successful and diversified agricultural sector inclusive of ruminant livestock, local food production, managed woodlands, and biomass production, coexisting with tourist-recreation sectors supporting vibrant rural communities.

In order to realize this vision in terms of vegetation management, a prioritized approach is organized along with goals and specific directives to affect the targets over time (See Figure 13 on right).

Primary Targets- Protect High Biodiversity Habitat and NPCs  Fire dependent plant communities  Mesic hardwood forest and white pine/hardwood forest plant communities  Root River and its floodplains  Warm and coldwater tributaries  Algific talus slopes, maderate cliffs and springs

Secondary Targets- Enhance and Restore COA & 12 Digit HUCs Since the Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA) have been identified as biological hotspots and with outstanding potential to respond to management, enhancement and restoration activities will be promoted with special emphasis within these sites. Figure 13. Conservation with a prioritized approach. Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 49

Section 4 –Vision and DFCs

Watershed Health- Restoration and Education Sub-watersheds largely influence the greater Root River Watershed as a whole. Exceptional sites at the 12 and 10 Digit level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) will also be considered for restoration activities. Extending beyond these boundaries, education through landowner workshops and peer to peer communications promote more conservation activities to a wider audience with local success examples people can relate to.

B. Desired Future Conditions (DFCs)

These DFCs, like the rest of the plan, are subject to revision and refinement by partner organizations:

Ecological Resources and Water Quality Ecology and water quality are intimately tied, and are grouped together in this plan to reflect this relationship. DFCs for ecology and water quality include:  All streams within the Root River Watershed are removed from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Impaired Waters list. Streams, lakes, and wetlands are surrounded by healthy riparian vegetation and dominated by native species. Timber harvest, row crop production, and rural and urban development are restricted close to water resources, thus reducing the potential impact on water quality. Diversity of vegetation and animals is promoted through natural corridors on public and private land. Wild areas, park and trail facilities are managed to support the integrity of natural areas and facilitate public access and recreation.  Native species are protected and their populations maintained. Exotic and invasive species are identified and their effects minimized through proper natural area management. Public agencies, private organizations, and interested individuals correspond often to ensure proper management of forest resources and collaborate to promote the continued health of Southeastern Minnesota’s unique environment.  Best management practices (BMPs) are emphasized in forest, agriculture, urban and natural area management activities. Education on proper implementation of BMPs is provided to farmers, contractors, developers, landowners, loggers, and natural resource managers and monitoring of their success is performed.

Economic Cost-share, incentive, and tax break programs that provide economically viable options to promote sustainable forest management are available and advertised with a single point of contact to landowners. These programs will help protect large blocks of natural areas from development. Professional assistance is readily available to landowners to assist in resource management in order to optimize natural resources and fulfill specific forest owner goals without jeopardizing sustainability and biodiversity.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 50

Section 4 –Vision and DFCs

Social Area residents are aware of and value the natural resources in the watershed. Land managers have a land ethic. Community and citizen groups are active in natural resource management, monitoring, and restoration. Education programs for children and adults promote appreciation and stewardship of the environment. Outreach groups are coordinated and included when discussing natural resource management.

Administrative Guidelines for integrated and coordinated service delivery between service providers and landowners that respects the desired future conditions as outlined in this plan are implemented and monitored. Government agencies and nongovernment conservation organizations are using ecosystem based management principals.

In approximately 10 years the Root River Watershed will contain:

 A restored natural fire disturbance regime  Large habitat corridors  Healthy streams with biotic integrity and native vegetation  Consistent funding for various landowner activities such as invasive species control and native plant community restoration  Active comprehensive conservation planning on priority sites  A single point of contact for landowner education, cost share assistance and marketing of services  Up-to-date county land use plans protecting rare features  Streams that have rehabilitated banks and native floodplain vegetation  Protection and/or management plans for white pine-hardwood forest sites.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 51

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

Section 5: Goals, Objectives and Actions

High Biodiversity Habitat and Native Plant Community Protection

Goal 1: Protect Existing High Biodiversity Habitat and Watershed Health. Protect and maintain the ecological resources and water quality and quantity within the Watershed in concert with the existing native plant communities and rare and natural features using sites of biodiversity significance and TNC Conservation Action Plan (CAP) sites as specific management areas.

Rationale:  Forest harvest, agriculture, and other development activities over the past one hundred years have significantly altered, disrupted, removed and/or destroyed many plant and animal species in the region, and have contributed to the impairment of streams within the Watershed.  Conservation Opportunity Areas are based on groupings of hydrological, geological, ecological, and climate factors and provide a geographical framework for specific target activities that respect the diverse landscapes of the watershed and will naturally accommodate management objectives specific to critical watershed areas.

Potential Monitoring Indicators:  MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Water unit assessment data.  Future aerial photography comparison to current photos to monitor changes in land cover and connectivity.  Protection of Sites of Biodiversity Significance not already protected by public land.  Conservation Opportunity Area Plans or Habitat Stewardship Plans created.

Objective 1: Determine Priority Areas. Identify, assess, and document the specific locations of remaining significant ecological resources within the watershed.

Action Items: 1. Conservation Opportunity Area Plans (COA) are to be completed for all 15 areas and 2 plans (Forestville and Pine Creek-Rushford) have been completed. Specific protection plans, management activities by native plant community type, and Forest Management Plan funding are outlined in these plans. 2. Establish a complete native plant community inventory and map within the COA areas. 3. Showcase these areas as proper examples of management in a native plant community and biological hotspot. Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 52

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

4. Watershed stakeholders direct resources toward these priority areas.

Objective 2: Protect Existing Large Blocks of Native Habitats. It is important to ensure that wherever possible, large blocks of native habitats are not fragmented.

Action Items: 1. Large blocks of native habitats, especially within the Conservation Opportunity Area Planning boundaries, should continue to be held in its natural state to maintain the unique features and sensitive diversity. 2. Encourage landowners in those areas to enroll in programs that promote maintaining native habitats. 3. Contact key landowners in each site to determine whether there is interest in easements or in selling to a conservation owner. 4. Review and utilize current, existing land protection plans as a basis for which DNR discipline will be the lead in acquisition activities for priority sites, and determine which other divisions have a potential interest in ownership within the sites. Utilize the priority acquisition compartments identified in the 1979 Richard J. Dorer Memorial Hardwood Forest, titled A Plan for Land Acquisition, as a foundation for protecting high priority areas, with protection carried out by various DNR divisions, including Fish and Wildlife, Ecological and Water Resources, Forestry, and Parks and Trails. 5. Each division should take steps to ensure the areas of interest have been approved for acquisition by determining statutory boundaries and taking the other steps required by the division. 6. Protect priority sites via easement or fee-title as they become available.

Objective 3: Protect Karst Groundwater Features. Protect rare features such as algific talus slopes, maderate cliffs, spring seeps and supporting sinkholes and conduits.

Action Items: 1. Protect forested cover on algific talus slopes, maderate cliffs, and spring seeps through direct acquisition. 2. Protect upslope buffers to prevent erosion and disruption of cold air currents. 3. Protect karst feature locations from poorly placed home development. 4. Buffer sinkholes with perennial vegetation. 5. Complete springshed maps for watershed. 6. Protect critical spring source areas.

Objective 4: Protect Habitat Corridors In combination with maintaining existing large blocks of native habitat, corridors should be protected.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 53

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

Action Items: 1. Protect corridors in areas of high biodiversity in stream bottoms, flood plains, and along the edges of large blocks of intact native habitats. 2. Promote programs like SFIA, conservation easements, and direct acquisition protect habitat corridors by keeping them or restoring natural communities. 3. Protect stream banks and floodplains. a. Enforce state shoreland ordinance. b. Expand use of RIM easements for riparian and floodplain protection and restoration

Objective 5: Support Public Conservation Protection. Support efforts to protect and enhance critical natural areas, fish and wildlife habitat, and game and non-game populations in natural areas through public acquisition efforts.

Action Items: 1. New state land acquisition (i.e. SNAS, WMAs, State Forest land). Work with landowners, local units of government, organizations and other DNR divisions to identify and acquire new state lands having high priority natural resources. Coordinate activities and support projects throughout the process. 2. Coordinate conservation practices between divisions and watershed stakeholders.

Objective 6: Identify and Assess Ecological Trends. Identify, assess, and document the specific locations of remaining high value natural areas within ECS land types in the watershed.

Action Items: 1. Create a geographic information system (GIS) of natural and cultural resource information for the watershed to guide planning and monitoring activities. Monitor updates to the invasive species, NPC and RNF databases and update GIS as these become available. 2. Summarize aquatic biological monitoring that has been completed for the watershed, update annually and establish trends where data allows.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 54

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

Conservation Opportunity Area and 12 Digit Hydrological Unit Enhancement and Restoration

Goal 2: Restore and/or Enhance Habitat Complexes. Improve the ecological resources and water quality within the watershed in concert with ecological resource and water quality recommendations as outlined in reports developed in Goal 1.

Rationale:  Ecological activities should align with existing native plant communities to ensure the right plants in the right place at the right time.  There are 109 miles of impaired perennial and intermittent streams within the Root River Watershed. 15 Conservation Opportunity Areas have been identified with significant habitat and potential for restoration and enhancement activities.

Potential Monitoring Indicators:  MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Water unit assessment data.  Future aerial photography comparison to current photos to monitor changes in land cover and connectivity.  Acres of native plant communities restored.  Acres of native plant communities enhanced  Conservation Opportunity Area Plans or Habitat Stewardship Plans created.  Coordination meetings.

Objective 1: Support Private Conservation Planning and Information Management. Support efforts to protect critical natural areas, fish and wildlife habitat, and game and non-game populations in natural areas on private lands.

Action Items: 1. Increase use of comprehensive Property Habitat Stewardship Plans that include Forest, Prairie, Riparian and Agricultural lands. 2. Develop an inventory of privately owned large tracts in the region containing natural habitat. 3. Promote proper management of mesic oak and hardwood/white pine communities. 4. Compile a database of landowner information based on their interest and history of actions. 5. Coordinated technical assistance from multiple stakeholders.

Objective 2: Implement Graduated Service Delivery Method. Use the Graduated Service Delivery (GSD) method to classify landowners based on their involvement with the land they own. In communication with the landowner discern and note why they own and enjoy their land. Appeal to their interests (noted earlier) in marketing conservation activities to them. Develop materials and guidelines for interaction with each level of landowner classification. (See Appendix H pages 87-93 in Landscape Stewardship Guide, USDA Forest Service 2011) Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 55

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

Action Items: 1. Integrate GSD into PFMM using information developed in Objective 1 as a baseline for landowner classification. 2. Develop Streamlined Forest Stewardship Plan. 3. Develop Landowner Handbook. 4. Track GSD using guidelines as described in Administrative Goals and Objectives.

Objective 3: Support Biological Diversity Projects. Support and when possible, fund projects and programs that foster native biodiversity in the watershed through the restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of forests and related stream and grassland ecosystems.

Action Items: 1. Root River Landscape Sustainable Forestry Fund. Explore the creation of a revolving loan fund and/or grant program to help landowners implement unique and highly beneficial projects to promote sustainable forestry practices, biological diversity, and water quality. 2. Project Coordination. Provide coordination services to initiate biological diversity projects and mobilize resources. 3. Technical Assistance. Provide technical assistance to landowners, businesses and interested groups working on biological diversity projects.

Objective 4: Restore Natural Fire Regime in Fire Dependent Communities Fire dependent communities have had fire unnaturally suppressed for years, and the return interval needs to be restored.

Action Items: 1. Reintroduce more fire, including some larger scale where appropriate as identified in Conservation Opportunity Area Plans (COA). 2. Re-establish and perpetuate low intensity surface fires as a natural disturbance that reduces shrubs and maintains forest health. (Fires historically occurred every few years on bluff prairies and dry savannas to every 11- 15 years in fire dependant forests and 20-35 years in the most common mesic hardwood forests. See pages 138, 143 and 148 of the Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province, MNDNR 2005)

Objective 5: Restore Native Vegetation to Historical Cover. Improve current site conditions by returning it to its naturally vegetated condition.

Action Item: 1. Restore forestland in once forested areas 2. Increase prairies and savannas Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 56

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

3. Restore wetland vegetation and function

Objective 6: Encourage Service Providers to Utilize BMPs. Provide and encourage use of an easily accessible resource tool for service providers who administer services as dictated by tax-incentive and cost-share programs that promote the use of guidelines determined in Ecological Resources and Water Quality Goals and Objectives.

Action Items: 1. Expand usage of PFMM database as a tool that service providers, including Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) staff, can easily use to determine guidelines for a particular landowner (Landview for easy find; LTA level guidelines added to ECS Land types layer). 2. Promote use of the PFMM to determine BMPs before site visits are made through increased training and support. 3. Promote local consulting businesses who meet CEU requirements and who have local forest resource knowledge.

Objective 7: Identify and Connect Currently Operational Groups. Identify groups that are currently operating within the watershed to understand where their area of focus is and how it applies to natural area conservation. Tailor messages to service provider groups to provoke interest in natural area conservation and how it can help their efforts.

Action Items: 1. Create a current list of operational service provider groups and their activities that apply to land management. Include citizen action groups, agricultural groups, and wildlife groups. 2. Create outreach materials that are tailored to concerns of each outreach group. 3. Document the preferred medium of communication for each group and whether they are interested in being involved in a social network concerning natural resources. 4. Create a social network of identified outreach groups using the most comprehensive and available medium to facilitate discussion and information sharing. 5. Research and develop success indicators for social network, monitor success using guidelines as described in Administrative Goals and Objectives. 6. Maintain list, utilize in service provider outreach. 7. Pursue a peer to peer landowner network.

Objective 8: Engage Groups. Develop and implement a targeted communications program to effectively inform groups within the watershed about how the goals and objectives of this plan are being carried out. Provide a forum for groups to share ideas and activities that concern natural resource management.

Action Items:

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 57

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

1. Utilize mailings for groups that are not participating in social network. Encourage groups to participate in social network in materials. 2. Hold workshops. 3. Build the social Network.. Facilitate discussion on natural resource issues. Promote natural resource related events. 4. Track activity as outlined in Administrative Goals and Objectives.

Watershed Health Restoration and Education

Goal 3: Improve the Health of the Root River Watershed. Restore habitats. Promote the intrinsic and extrinsic values of sustainable management of prairies, savannas, floodplains, pastures, forests and other perennial vegetation to the greater watershed.

Rationale:  Maintaining restored acres is a watershed wide approach.  Many do not see the benefits to the community from proper forest, prairie, and pasture management on private lands.  Forest landowners are often concerned about ensuring that the natural landscape is sustained for ‘their children and grandchildren’, or for generations to come.  Sustainably managed natural resources require long term commitments and coordination between investing public agencies. Potential Monitoring Indicators:  Acres burned, treated, and/or restored.  Habitat Stewardship Plans created  Landowner Outreach Events and contacts made  Landowner database  Coordination meetings

Objective 1: Inventory and Assess Parcels within Project Area. Inventory parcels within project area to determine general trends and assess parcels for stewardship potential.

Action Items: 1. Assess and document the current number of Stewardship Plans in the study area. 2. Determine the number of private parcels within the project area, assess, summarize, and map based on parcel size. 3. Determine landowner tenure as a potential indicator of interaction with property and ranking based on GSD scale (e.g. Homestead/Non). 4. Determine if the landowner is an owner/operator or absentee landowner.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 58

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

5. Score parcels based on intersection with high biodiversity sites, proximity to public land, and adjacency to water bodies including intermittent trout stream tributaries.

Objective 2: Coordinate Management of Ecological and Water Resources. Coordinate management of Ecological Resources within the watershed between all stakeholders including DNR, SWCDs, NRCS, BWSR, MPCA, Consulting Foresters, and Citizen Groups.

Action Items: 1. Utilize scoring developed from Objective 1 to develop guidelines that advise coordination. 2. Track implementation using methods as described in Administrative Goals and Objectives. 3. Integrate Landscape Stewardship Plan goals, objectives and actions in Local Water Plans, Land Use Plans and other watershed plans. 4. Annual stakeholder meetings to coordinate completed, ongoing and planned activities.

Objective 3: Implement Agricultural Practices that Improve Water Quality. Promote agricultural practices that improve water quality.

Action Items: 1. Partner with local groups, including agricultural organizations to protect and restore watershed health. 2. Promote the use of perennial vegetation throughout the watershed for water quality protection. 3. Encourage total land management to improve land and water resources. 4. Target critical areas in the watershed in need of conservation practices. 5. Promote long-term soil health on agricultural lands. 6. Target resources to COA areas.

Objective 4: Prevent/Control Non-Native Species. Support efforts by landowners, the DNR Division of Forestry, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and other agencies to prevent and/or control the spread of non-native plant and animal species such as buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, garlic mustard, gypsy moth and others.

Action Items: 1. Promote Landowner Awareness. Use guidelines in Social Goals and Objectives to support efforts by resource agencies to inform landowners in the region of invasive non-native plant and animal species that negatively impact forest resources and ways to prevent and control them.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 59

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

2. Engage Local Officials. Use guidelines in Social Goals and Objectives to distribute information to local officials in the region that describe ways to prevent or control the spread of invasive plant and animal species that negatively impact native plant communities. 3. Maintain current and historical GIS records of invasive species using DNR database. Analyze for success/failure. 4. Inventory Private Lands. Utilize PFMM to track invasive species on private lands that have Forest Stewardship Plans. 5. Educate loggerson and using best management practices consistent with DNR Division of Ecological Resources Operational Order 113.

Objective 5: Restore biotic integrity of healthy streams and floodplains. Restoring the biotic integrity of healthy streams will improve water quality.

Action Items: 1. Improve biotic integrity through effective perennial vegetated stream buffers in upper and lower reaches. Restore natural vegetation within existing buffers. 2. Improve biotic integrity by restoring natural vegetation in floodplains. 3. Follow the Voluntary Site Level Guidelines as published by the Forest Resource Council to prevent degradation of buffers and infiltration of pollutants directly into water. 4. Enforce state shore land ordinance 5. Reduce fine sediment in streams 6. Utilize natural channel design for stream restorations

Objective 6: Develop Forest Spatial Analyses. Develop a detailed assessment of the past and existing spatial patterns of the major forested areas in the watershed.

Action Items: 1. Coordinate the development of a spatial analysis study of the past and existing forest patterns within the watershed. 2. Prepare a study that summarizes the results of the forest spatial analyses. 3. Distribute and discuss the study results at coordination meetings. Use the results to guide future restoration activities.

Objective7: Assess the Potential Future Tax Incentive and Cost-share Paradigm. Keep informed of how the future cost incentive paradigm will be structured to help prevent landowners from being frustrated by disorganized, disconnected, and under-managed tax incentive and cost-share programs. Propose the development of an alternative sustainable forestry initiative such as the Forest Bank.

Action Items:

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 60

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

1. Assess the future of Minnesota forest tax programs (SFIA, 2C, and EQIP) and how it will apply to landowners within the Watershed. 2. Assist landowners in becoming familiar with these programs and how to apply, through a single point of contact (Landscape Resource Specialist).

Objective 8: Improve Coordination with Forest Products Market and Private Landowners. Integrate the forest product market with private landowners. Establish chain of custody for sustainable forest management on private land. Action Items: 1. Update the Southeast Minnesota Forest Products Industry Directory. 2. Work with the DNR Division of Forestry to communicate to forest products businesses in the region, new technologies that apply to lesser-utilized species, and identify potential markets. 3. Support the creation of value-added forest product businesses. 4. Work with economic development organizations to promote and coordinate forest related economic development opportunities. 5. Create or utilize an existing exchange network for the forest products market. 6. Integrate third party sustainable forest management certification (such as Tree Farm) into Stewardship Planning.

Objective 9: Promote Social Benefits of Ecosystem Services to Groups. Groups, such as County and Township Boards, co- ops, Economic Development Authorities and other citizen groups, should be informed about the social benefits of sustainable resource management.

Action Items: 1. Integrate information on social benefits of sustainable forestry, prairies, buffers and pastures in outreach documents. 2. Provide education and workshops tailored to the specific group. This in turn could lead to volunteers that are led by citizen groups.

Objective 10: Promote Social Benefits of Natural Resources to Citizens. Individual landowners should be informed about the social benefits of sustainable natural resource management.

Action Items: 1. Integrate information on social benefits of sustainable resources in outreach documents. 2. Have the Landscape Resource Specialist be available to do field visits to communicate the social benefits of forestry, prairies, buffers and well-managed pastures, etc.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 61

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

Objective 11: Monitor, Assess, and Report on Ecological Resources and Water Quality Conditions. Monitor ecological resource and water quality conditions for changes. Assess these changes to determine if Goals and Objectives are being met. Report on changes.

Action Items: 1. Track changes for: NPC and RNF within ECS Land Type Associations (using Geospatial Data Resource Site-GDRS database/Geoprocessing tools); Implementation of Site-Level Guidelines (PFMM); Stream Water Quality (MPCA Impaired Waters Database); citizen stream monitoring, DNR Fisheries stream surveys, local and project based monitoring efforts 2. Build geoprocessing tools that facilitate updates of information from the GDRS to the Watershed to the LTA. Research general timelines for when to expect updates on the GDRS. 3. Understand appropriate indicators for desired outcomes. 4. Report on changes. 5. Distribute and discuss reports annually based on guidelines in Social Goals and Objectives. 6. Revise Goals and Objectives as needed.

Objective 12: Monitor, Assess and Report on Coordination Activities. Track conservation activities related to actions identified in this plan.

Action Items: 1. Stakeholders record activities associated with this plan and report activities annually. 2. An annual activity report is developed with stakeholder activities and progress toward the plan goals. 3. Assess stakeholder participation with plan implementation.

Objective 13: Monitor, Assess, and Report on Social Goals. Monitor, assess, and report on social activities that are supporting private natural area management. Track outreach efforts for private landowners as well as citizen and community groups. Assess activities to determine if Goals and Objectives are being met. Report on changes.

Action Items: 1. Create an Outreach Database with a Landowner Registry and a Citizen/Community Group Registry that allows for easy tracking of outreach efforts. Integrate Outreach Database with PFMM to provide seamless transition of landowner information along Graduated Service Delivery levels. 2. Link Citizen/Community Groups to outreach efforts within the database. 3. Track how citizens were introduced to a particular effort (e.g. How did you hear about the PFM program?...) 4. Keep historical records of the number of landowners listed at each GSD level. 5. Track the starting GSD level as well as the current GSD level to monitor changes. Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 62

Section 5 – Goals, Objectives and Actions

6. Update plans with detailed information in the PFMM in the watershed. Check for specific landowner goals, identify common goals. Track how these goals change over time. 7. Track social network activity. Revise activities as needed.

Objective 14: Monitor, Assess, and Report on Economic Activity. Monitor economic activity. Assess economic activity. Report on economic activity.

Action Items: 1. Monitor Goals based on plans developed in the watershed. 2. Track changes to the Southeast Minnesota Forest Products Industry Directory. 3. Track changes to southeast Minnesota consulting and vendor lists. 4. Develop annual Southeast MN Forest Industry Survey for vendors and processors.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 63

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

Part 3: How will we get there?

Section 6: Coordination Strategies

A. Overview

The commitment to sharing resources and active involvement on an ongoing basis is the core to reaching the goals and objectives of this watershed plan. All agencies involved should complement each other’s efforts for the common goal of implementing sustainable natural resource management within the Root River Watershed. While more partners are welcome and invited current agencies include, but are not limited to (see Appendix F for abbreviation meanings):

BALMM Land Stewardship Project Pheasants Forever BWSR MDA SE MN Water Resource Board Consultants MN Deer Hunters Association SWCD DNR Forestry MFRC TNC DNR Parks and Trails MLT Trout Unlimited DNR Fisheries and Wildlife MPCA U of M DNR Ecological & Water NRCS RC&D Resources

To ensure coordination efforts are successful, it is important for the agencies to have a minimum 10-year commitment to the project.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 64

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

B. Coordination Strategies

In order to successfully manage and monitor the natural resources in the Root River Watershed, coordination between agencies and landowners is essential. To ensure that all players are on the same page, it would be beneficial to have a central point of contact for coordination efforts. A Landscape Resource Specialist specifically designated for the Root River Watershed could fill the functionality of this role.

Landscape Resource Specialist

A ‘Landscape Resource Specialist’ would take the lead in coordinating activities within the Root River Watershed and be the point of contact designated to guide the landowners and agencies. The Landscape Resource Specialist would oversee activities within the Root River Watershed under the direction of the Root River Steering Committee (see Coordination Chart below). The Landscape Resource Specialist would fulfill the following responsibilities.

Figure 6.1 Committee Coordination Chart. Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 65

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

Responsibilities  Project and funding coordination  Lead semiannual informational/progression meetings with committed agencies  Marketing campaign for engaging landowners  Landowner point of contact for projects, consultants, and funding options  Lead semiannual fieldtrips/workshops for landowners  Understand agency programs and policies (i.e. DNR SFRMP, NRCS EQIP, etc.)

Landscape Stewardship Coordination When: Annually every year between January and March, preferably on or around Root River total maximum daily load (TMDL) stakeholder meeting. Who: This annual meeting will include all stakeholders including representatives from each DNR Division, USFWS, non- governmental organizations, SWCDs, NRCS, water planners, BWSR, landowner representatives, consulting foresters, MPCA, and University of Minnesota Extension.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 66

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

Purpose:  Report on and review Landscape Stewardship Plan related activities from previous year.  Discuss upcoming needs and opportunities.  Identify coordination needs within LSP area and COAs.

Steering Committee When: May and November Who: DNR Forestry, Ecological and Water Resources, MFRC, TNC, and Fillmore SWCD Purpose:  Review ongoing activities related to LSP  Provide guidance to Landscape Resource Specialist  Determine upcoming activities  Develop funding strategies for activities  Identify coordination needs and project leads  Grant administration as necessary  Field Day planning

COA Coordination When: Annually January – February Who: Active stakeholders in respective COA including, but not limited to state land managers, NGOs, private land managers, SWCDs, consulting foresters Purpose:  Report and review ongoing activities in COA.  Discuss conservation needs and opportunities.  Identify project leads and coordination needs.  Schedule upcoming activities.  Identify funding needs and opportunities.  Develop COA specific field day and training opportunities.

Resource Agency Field Day/Training When: Annually in July or depending on training purpose Who: Federal, state and local agencies including NGOs involved in land management Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 67

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

Purpose:  Increase local knowledge base for high biodiversity area management.  Exchange information and experiences of land management practices, examples include, but not limited to: invasive species management, prescribed fire, riparian management, native prairie establishment/management, timber harvesting, erosion control, resource inventory.  Increase coordination of stewardship activities on state and private lands.  Promote high biodiversity area management amongst area managers and stakeholders.

Landowner Field Day/Training When: June or September or based on landowner availability Who: Interested landowners, priority landowners in COAs, local elected officials, technical service providers Purpose:  Increase stewardship on private lands.  Engage landowners to conduct stewardship on private lands.  Increase communication between landowners.

Partners and Partnerships The aforementioned Landscape Resource Specialist and the agencies listed above would all partner together to coordinate management activities in the watershed. When planning for management on private or public land, especially within Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA), agencies would want to consult this Landscape plan (and relevant COA) and the Landscape Resource Specialist as a source of direction and funding. Below are further explanations of these partnerships and teams.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Project Steering Team The Root River Landscape Stewardship Project Steering Team was the initial organizer of this watershed landscape stewardship project. The 5 members of the team (See Appendix F) developed the overall process and major steps for the project (planning, coordination, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation). They were responsible for administering initial project funding and contracting.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Planning/Coordination Committee The Root River Landscape Stewardship Planning/Coordination Committee consists of several representatives from various agencies (See Appendix F) Their role included providing input into the content of this landscape plan and then continuing to provide input for guiding the coordination of activities and events. They will continue to meet annually over the next 10 years to oversee implementation and monitor success.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 68

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

Root River Watershed Workgroup The Root River Watershed Workgroup consists of several representatives from various agencies (See Appendix F). This committee is comprised of the largest diversity of members/organizations and its role is to be informed about the goals and strategies of the plan and to advocate and support its implementation. Furthermore, they would carry that support back to their home organizations and ensure the plan is integrated with their own plans and policies.

MFRC Southeast Landscape Committee The MFRC Landscape Program fulfills the MFRC’s charge to “encourage cooperation and collaboration between public and private sectors in the management of the state’s forest resources.” This grass-roots effort builds relationships, strengthens partnerships, and identifies collaborative forest management projects that address local needs and represent concrete steps in determining and reaching citizen-identified short-term and long-term goals for broad landscape regions. Committee members represent forest industry, natural resource agencies, individual landowners, non-profit organizations, educational institutions and concerned citizens. The Southeast Landscape Committee provides oversight to the Landscape Resource Specialist.

The Landscape Resource Specialist is to serve as the point of contact in connecting private landowners needs to these more technical experts. Additionally, during slower periods of activity on private land, the Landscape Resource Specialist could assist with the occasional overflow of work in these agencies. The multi-faceted interaction between the Landscape Resource Specialist and these agencies would allow the Landscape Resources Specialist to be available for multiple purposes. For example, the Specialist could assist in connecting landowners with local District Conservationists to receive funding for a project through a NRCS program, and also be available to assist on a prescribed burn within the Forestville Mystery Cave State Park.

Partnership with MN DNR Forestry PFM Program MN DNR Division of Forestry supports a well-rounded Private Forest Management (PFM) program, including private forest stewardship planning. The purpose of the program is to provide technical advice and long range forest management planning to interested landowners. All aspects of the program are voluntary. Plans are designed to meet landowner goals while maintaining the sustainability of the land. The entire property, except active farming areas, is covered by the plan. The DNR has provided voluntary planning advice since 1947. While still based on the landowner goals, this program has expanded to include all aspects of the ecosystem as well. This program is authorized by MN Laws 88.79, and U.S. Public Law Chapter 101 (1990 Farm Bill).

In 2012, the PFM program’s annual budget was cut by 75% from $2 million to $500,000. While PFM forester capacity will not drop by quite that much, it will be reduced from an average of 15-17 full time equivalents over the past several years to only 12, seven of which will be funded by grants, rather than state funds. These staff, along with private sector partners, will be responsible to serve Minnesota’s 200,000 family woodland owners.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 69

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

Training Continuing Education Opportunities MN DNR partners with Sustainable Forest Education Cooperative (SFEC) to provide continuous education programs. SFEC promotes excellence in natural resource management through educational opportunities that bring professionals together to explore current research findings, new technologies, and state-of-the-art practices. Some topics of education include forest ecology and management, wildlife biology, forest hydrology, botany, best management practices, technology transfer, human dimensions. Skill courses are open to participants outside of the sponsoring institution. The programs are provided via many venues including webinars, field days, workshops, and certificate courses. The programs provide continuing education credits, using the Society of American Foresters grading criteria. MN DNR mandates that one of the eligibility requirements to be an approved Stewardship Plan Writer is to have 20 continuing education units per year from an SAF accredited program. Agency staff and vendors train together to specifically serve landowners in the Root River Watershed.

PFMM Database MN DNR is in the process of creating a Private Forest Management Module. The intent of this module is to have a central database of landowner stewardship records. This database will allow DNR foresters (and Landscape Resource Specialists) to determine which landowners have a stewardship plan on file, an outline of the contents of the plan, and when it was last updated. This database is incorporated into a GIS adding to the landscape level of insight.

NRCS Technical Service Provider To become a Technical Service Provider (TSP) through the Natural Resource Conservation Service a combination of education, work experience, professional certification and TSP training is required. TSP’s receive access to documents through the Field Office Tech Guide (FOTG) on the most effective local practices and their implementation. As a TSP an individual has the ability to recommend specific cost-share practices to a given site as well as supervise and approve of their implementation.

Engaging Communities and Landowners Outreach to Community Leaders and Local Decision Makers Set up tasks to let township, county, SWCD and other local officials become aware and informed on landscape stewardship in Root River Watershed and how they can support, get involved, etc. Rather than creating new workgroups for them to be part of, it may be more advantageous to connect presentations about the Root River Watershed into meetings they are already part of. For instance, many key community leaders and local officials are involved in the Winona County Invasive Species Workgroup. There may be opportunities to interweave messages about the Root River Watershed at these types of meetings.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 70

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

Landowner Outreach Some of the outreach activities that can be used to reach landowners include: a general workshop with field component discussing Private Stewardship plan components on private property, walking stands and discussing management recommendations, a field day focusing on a specific management activity (i.e. first year prescribed burn, prairie restorations, timber stand improvements, or invasive species management projects).

In addition to these workshops, another important tool is University of Minnesota Extension’s My Minnesota Woods, a website aimed at forest landowers. Through this website, Extension has created an established method of landowner interaction and education as well as established relationships with many forest landowners.

As the PFM module continues to grow with landowners and stewardship plans, information about their interests, management history, utilized cost share programs, tax program enrollments, and hunting licenses will be recorded. This will allow for better marketing of management strategies and services to specifically targeted landowners. Following up and making a note of these interests may be as simple as making phone calls to landowners who recently engaged in forest management activities. For example, this date could be used to target rural homeowners/hunters with a mailing on improving wildlife habitat. Alternatively, absentee landowners may be contacted with information about hunting leases. Essentially, this approach allows for a landowner to be contacted based on their documented needs/uses, rather than mass mailings that are not applicable to them.

C. Coordination Successes

Money Creek Bluff/Vinegar Ridge Coordination Example The Money Creek Bluffs site in the Vinegar Ridge State Forest unit in Houston County is a good case study of how coordination and planning brings together different groups for common goals. See Figure 6.2 on page 6-7 for Vinegar Ridge and Root River Watershed Coordination Comparison.

In 2008, this site was selected by the DNR to be an Adaptive Forest Management Project (AFMP) site, one of several in the state that would demonstrate interdisciplinary coordination to sustainably manage the natural resources in each site. The primary DNR disciplines that participated were the Ecological and Water Resources, Fish and Wildlife, and Forestry Divisions. Parks and Trails DNR staff and Minnesota Conservation Corps (MCC) crews also helped on some projects. An AFMP plan was written that identified several projects to take place in the site: oak savanna restoration through fuel wood sales and prescribed burning; baseline detailed native plant community mapping; experimental oak forest management; vegetation monitoring before and after active management to measure effectiveness; and detailed mapping of rare species. In both 2011 and 2012 large-scale prescribed burns and pre- and post-burn monitoring were accomplished through coordination among divisions. Initial vegetation monitoring results indicate the fires made a noticeable difference in opening up oak savanna and woodland habitats and increasing some rare plant populations. The native plant community mapping and some initial detailed rare plant species Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 71

Section 6 – Coordination Strategies

mapping were also completed. Invasive shrub removal from bedrock bluff prairies in the site was added to the project. Some key components of this success include a project coordinator, having a written plan with specific direction, defining goals, using professional field crews, project supervision, developing and implementing a monitoring protocol, and having a funding source. These same components can be utilized to develop other projects involving multiple partners in the Root River watershed.

Following the example set by the Vinegar Ridge prescribed burn, activities in the Root River Watershed would be directed by the Landscape Specialist under the oversight of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee would have made available different funding sources from partner agencies to be financially assist activities supervised by the Landscape Resource Specialist. The Landscape Resource Specialist follows the site plan (Stewardship Plan) or Conservation Opportunity Area plan and coordinates with the landowners, various agencies and consultants who offer technical assistance in the form of further site planning (Stewardship Plans) or activities outlined in those plans (prescribed burning). The Landscape Specialist also directly supervises the project or coordinates with the Steering Committee to oversee and evaluate different specialized aspects of it (such as prescribed burn boss or species survey).

2011 2012 Root River Watershed Team anchor Forestry Staff 1 Non game Staff 1/Forestry Staff 1 Landscape Specialist/Steering Committee Coordinator Forestry Staff 1 Forestry Staff 1 Landscape Specialist Plan AFMP Site Burn Plan Root River Watershed Plan/ COA Specifics AFMP Site Burn Plan Stewardship Plans oak regeneration, habitat oak regeneration, habitat restoration, prairie Vary by site plan, broadly described in restoration, prairie restoration, Goals restoration, invasive Landscape Plan or COA invasive treatment discovery treatment discovery Forestry, Wildlife, Eco, Parks, Forestry, Wildlife, Eco, Parks, Boots on the Consultants, DNR ground MCC MCC Project Supervisor Forestry Staff 2 Non game Staff 1 Landscape Specialist Landscape Specialist to Steering Evaluation DNR Ecological Resources DNR Ecological Resources Committee Agencies Forestry, Wildlife, Eco, Parks Forestry, Wildlife, Eco, Parks Multiple Funding DNR Forestry DNR Wildlife Various

Vinegar Ridge and Root River Watershed Coordination Comparison

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 72

Section 7 – Implementation

Section 7: Implementation: Strategies and Action Plan

A. Implementation Strategies

The following are the basic implementation strategies that can be used in most any resource management endeavor, including natural resource stewardship:  Outreach & Education  Technical Assistance  Financial Assistance  Public Investments  Policy Integration

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 73

Section 7 – Implementation

B. Implementation Tools

When outlining implementation strategies in resource management plans, it is beneficial to consider the entire range of tools that resource managers can use. The “implementation tool box” is often bigger than many people realize. The following diagram illustrates many of the major implementation techniques that can be incorporated into landscape stewardship plans. These may fall under one or more of the strategies described above. As the diagram suggests, services provided to landowners on the left tend to be less costly, but are also less permanent in nature and less explicitly connected with societal benefits. In contrast, techniques listed further to the right side of the spectrum, while more costly, generally tend to have a greater degree of permanence and produce more easily recognized benefits to society.

Implementation Tool Box

Range of Options #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

Forest Technical Cost Property Forest Land Fee Advice and Stewardship Share Tax Economic Conservation Trades & Title Assistance Plans Programs Programs Development Easements Exchanges Acquisition • Information • Individual • Federal • Credit • Coops • Donated • Public • Federal • Site Visits • Cluster • State • Deferral • Forest Banks • Purchased • Industrial • State • Tree Sales • Common • Local • Local • Equipment

Costs and Benefits Generally… Generally… • Lower costs. • Higher costs. • Less permanent. • More permanent. • Fewer social benefits. • Greater social benefits.

* Source: Dan Steward, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 74

Section 7 – Implementation

In order to satisfactorily accomplish activities in the Root River Watershed, a variety of the following implementation tools may be used. The Landscape Resource Specialist is best suited to match up the desired benefits and level of commitment to accommodate needs of each landowner with the tool(s) described below.

Provide technical advice and assistance This would include providing natural resource information, site visits, tree sales, and equipment where necessary or feasible.

Natural resource stewardship plans For a landowner to properly manage his or her property, it is best to have a stewardship plan written specifically for the property according to his or her goals with consideration of the larger landscape in which it is located.

Cost share programs There are many cost share programs that landowners can enroll in to perform forestry-related activities. For example, EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentive Program) is a USDA NRCS program that has funds specifically designated for forestry practices. This program has recently been funded to provide one million dollars specifically for forest management practices in Minnesota, for the next four years. Priority areas have been established, and fortunately the Root River Watershed has been selected.

The Minnesota Deer Hunters Association (MDHA) is another funding source that may be willing to provide funding for forest management activities that benefit deer habitat. The Root River chapter of MDHA has been contacted to pursue further information for this funding source.

Property tax programs Certain landowners may be eligible to receive certain tax credits for enrolling in sustainable forestry programs. For instance, the 2C program allows eligible landowners to have a reduced tax rate for their enrolled forestry acres (0.65% rather than the usual 1.00% for non-homestead land). The Sustainable Forestry Incentive Act (SFIA) is another tax program, in which eligible landowners receive a $7.00 per acre incentive payment per acre for eligible, enrolled acres ( rates as of 2012). (See appendix G)

Conservation Easements Minnesota Land Trust and The Nature Conservancy offer legally binding agreements to purchased or donated land to limit development of land for the property’s ecological or open space value. These easements are voluntary and best protect the landscape without having to outright purchase the property.

Land Exchanges

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 75

Section 7 – Implementation

Often times land is offered for trade to private individuals by industrial or public organizations such as the DNR to more efficiently facilitate management on larger blocks of forestland. This is a title exchange that can benefit landscape ecology by reducing forest fragmentation.

Fee Title Acquisition Various parcels may be viewed as more or less valuable to an agency or business and so a ‘protection plan’ is followed as land becomes available for purchase.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 76

Section 7 – Implementation

C. 10-Year Action Plan (and goals actions are targeted at): Root River Watershed Landscape Stewardship

Action Area 1: Protection Action Strategies Contributing Organizations (Appendix F)  Policy Integration MFRC (Landscape Resource Specialist)  Public Investment DNR EWR Trout Unlimited DNR Forestry NRCS DNR Fisheries TNC DNR Parks and Trails SWCD DNR Wildlife NRCS BWSR MLT

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 1 Goal 1, 2 & 3 Protection COA RR Watershed Easement COA RR Watershed Acquisition Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public

2015 Tracts 6 4 2015 Tracts 6 2 Acres 600 400 Acres 500 160 2020 Tracts 12 10 2020 Tracts 10 5 Acres 2400 1000 Acres 800 400

Riparian Goals 1 & 2 Goal 3 Easement COA RR Watershed Private Public Private Public

2015 Tracts 6 4 Acres 120 80

2020 Tracts 15 10 Acres 300 200

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 77

Section 7 – Implementation

Action Area 2: Restoration and Enhancement Action Strategies Contributing Organizations  Technical Assistance DNR EWR Trout Unlimited  Incentive Programs DNR Forestry Consultants  Financial Assistance DNR Fisheries TNC  Policy Integration DNR Parks and Trails SWCD DNR Wildlife NRCS SE MN WRB RC & D MDHA MPCA MFRC (Landscape Resource Specialist) Coordination - Stewardship Landscape Res. Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3 Goals 2 & 3 Goal 3 Planning* Spec. COA RR Watershed COA RR Watershed Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public

Annually 1* 1 2015 Tracts 10 5

Biannually 2** 2*** Acres 500 250 *Landowner workshop focusing on activities, 2020 Tracts 10 25 opportunities, meet a resource professional, maintain Acres 500 1250 landowner participation in LSP implementation *Includes NRCS Conservation Activity Plans **Meeting specific to COA stakeholders ***Meeting for watershed-wide stakeholders

Prairie & Oak Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3 Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3 Savanna COA RR Watershed Prescribed Fire COA RR Watershed Restoration/ Public Enhancement Private Public Private Private Public Private Public 2015 Tracts 5 3 10 10 2015 Tracts 10 8 4 6 Acres 25 30 50 100 Acres 50 320 20 240 2020 Tracts 10 8 25 15 2020 Tracts 12 10 5 5 Acres 50 80 125 150 Acres 60 400 25 200

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 78

Section 7 – Implementation

Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3 Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3

Invasive Species COA RR Watershed Timber Stand COA RR Watershed Management Private Public Private Public Improvement Private Public Private Public 2015 Tracts 20 15 50 20 2015 Tracts 30 10 60 20 Acres 200 150 500 200 Acres 450 200 900 400 2020 Tracts 50 25 60 25 2020 Tracts 50 20 100 30 Acres 500 250 600 250 Acres 750 400 1500 600

Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3 Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3 COA RR Watershed Prairie Planting COA RR Watershed Riparian Buffer Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public 2015 Tracts 10 2 60 20 2015 Tracts 5 3 10 10 Acres 20 20 600 200 Acres 25 30 50 100 2020 Tracts 50 25 60 25 2020 Tracts 10 8 50 15 Acres 500 250 600 250 Acres 50 80 250 150

Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3 PFM/Habitat Goals 1 & 2 Goals 2 & 3 Wetland/Floodplain COA RR Watershed Activities COA RR Watershed Restoration Private Public Private Public Tree Planting Private Public Private Public 2015 Tracts 2 1 3 3 2015 Tracts 20 3 30 10 Acres 4 3 6 40 Acres 200 45 300 150 2020 Tracts 2 1 2 4 2020 Tracts 25 5 50 10 Acres 4 3 5 50 Acres 250 75 500 150

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 79

Section 7 – Implementation

Action Area 3: Education and Monitoring Action Strategies Contributing Organizations  Outreach and Education U of M Extension DNR Forestry Consultants NRCS MPCA

Annual Landowner Goals 2 & 3 Goal 3 Goal 2 and 3 Goal 3 Outreach/Education COA RR Watershed Monitoring COA RR Watershed Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Activity Field Days 3* 1** 1 Reporting annually annually annually annually Landowner Contacts 60 60 Landowner Network 4

*1 general workshop with field component discussing Private Stewardship plan components on private property. Walking stands and discussion management recommendations. Other field day focusing on a specific management activity, year 1 prescribed fire, invasive species, TSI, etc. **Interagency site visit for resource managers. Project overview, methodology, exchange of ideas.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 80

Section 8 – Monitoring & Evaluation

Section 8: Monitoring and Evaluation

A. Overview

All landscape stewardship projects should include efforts to monitor what has been accomplished as well as evaluate the effectiveness of the project’s approach to forest stewardship over time.

As with individual landowner plans, landscape stewardship plans should begin with clear goals and objectives. The goals and objectives reflect the needs and interests of local as well as State and regional stakeholders, and ultimately serve as the basis for evaluating and adjusting the plan. Good plans support the short-term monitoring of accomplishments as well as evaluating the long-term outcomes (the program impacts). Monitoring focuses on tracking what is accomplished, while evaluation seeks to measure program effectiveness.

Monitoring the project’s accomplishments related to program activities is generally short term in nature. Evaluating outcomes or results, such as an increase in engaged landowners or increased acres of forest on privately owned lands, takes a longer-term perspective. Monitoring takes place on an ongoing basis or annually, whereas evaluation occurs less often.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 81

Section 8 – Monitoring & Evaluation

B. Short-Term: Monitor Performance and Evaluate Process

All projects listed in the 10 year action plan shown previously is quantified by the number of plans, easements, acres of projects, number of active landowners, number of new contacts and field days. This data will be tabulated on an annual basis by the Landscape Resource Specialist and presented to the Root River Steering Committee and Root River Watershed Workgroup. MPCA is currently developing and monitoring streams by an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) based on aquatic invertebrates. This measure of water quality should also be discussed in context with landowner activities.

In combination with the PFM Module, landowners’ response rates would also be recorded against direct mailings and other marketing efforts. Tracking these marketing efforts will show how to best reach interested persons and effective tools to engage them in management.

Table 2. Example of Activity Tracking Activity Year Stewardship Plans Stewardship Acres* Participating Landowners Landowner Contacts Field Days

C. Long-Term: Assess Results and Evaluate Effectiveness

In combination with annual funding, project and landowner goals the 10 year action plan shown previously has quantified 3 and 8 year targets. By comparing the trends of the annual monitoring process, goals and objectives can be refined to meet new or existing targets. Through this 10 year planning process a regular and steady increase in the total number of management activities, forestland, prairie/savanna, improvement in water quality, conservation of rare plants and animals, reduction of invasive species as well as 100% forest landowner involvement in stewardship planning should be realized.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 82

Section 9: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Section 9: Agency and Organization Recommendations

The purpose of this section is to summarize specific recommendations from the Committee to specific agencies and organizations working in the watershed on sustainable natural resource management. The intent is to assist people from these entities in finding specific strategies that apply to their organizations or personnel interests.

One overarching recommendation from the Committee was to encourage all organizations and agencies, all landowners and citizens, to use this Plan and the corresponding maps and data in as many ways as possible. Successful education and outreach often happens one landowner at a time.

The following represents an initial list of recommendations developed by the Committee:

A. Recommendations to the MFRC

1. Landscape Resource Specialist: Continue to support the formation of a Landscape Resource Specialist position to help in the ongoing implementation of this plan and coordination of its recommended activities. 2. Sharing and Communications: Support the increased sharing of ideas and experiences between the landscape committees as well as new and successful sustainable natural resource management activities taking place within other watersheds. 3. PFM Funding: Find ways to increase funding support for the private forest management program administered by the DNR to effectively serve more landowners. Support activities on the 10 year Action Plan.

B. Recommendations to Local Officials

1. Reference Document: Local officials are strongly encouraged to refer to this Plan as a reference document when developing their local plans, especially local water plans. 2. Resource-Based Planning. Local officials are encouraged to incorporate a more comprehensive consideration of natural resources into their land use planning processes. Understanding the natural systems is key to communities with a high quality of life. 3. Consider Forests, Prairies and Riparian Areas in Local Land Use Decisions: Local officials are encouraged to consider the values and benefits that these natural resources can bring to their communities. Healthy streams and sustainable forests

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 83

Section 9: Agency and Organization Recommendations

promote a high quality of life for citizens and can support increased economic opportunities as well. Biodiversity should be included in the land use decision making process. 4. Alternative Development Options: There are alternative ways that land can be developed to provide for both economic growth and the protection of forest resources. Large lot developments are not always desirable or cost effective from the public sector or taxpayers perspectives. Local officials are encouraged to use forestry as a way to improve their communities and their future development. Forest fragmentation should be slowed through appropriate zoning.

C. Recommendations to Resource Agencies

1. Service to Landowners: Continue to improve the delivery of technical and financial assistance on forest and prairie management to private landowners. Find ways to increase funding for the private forest management program. Continue to promote native plant communities using the Ecological Classification System (ECS) as a guide to developing land management strategies when working with landowners and local officials. Refer to this Landscape Plan and its Comprehensive Conservation Plans. 2. Important and Critical Areas. Continue to identify and protect important or critical ecological areas such the Comprehensive Conservation Planning areas and their plans. Follow their plans. Put an emphasis on native plant communities and biodiversity in these areas. 3. Data Gathering. Support the collection, organization and evaluation of data collected relating to natural resources at the local level on private lands. Encourage the coordination and sharing of data with other resource agencies and local officials. 4. Fund restoration projects. Natural resource management is a long term commitment and requires long term funding to reach the desired future conditions. Contribute to staff time or direct funding to support projects on the 10 year Action Plan. D. Recommendations to Conservation and Non-governmental Organizations

1. Reference Document: Use this Plan as a reference document when developing plans and strategies. 2. Collaboration: Encourage the partnering of conservation and non-governmental organizations to address major resource management issues. Build on what has already been accomplished by this Plan and its Comprehensive Conservation Plans. 3. Fund restoration projects: Natural resource management is a long term commitment and requires long term funding to reach the desired future conditions. Contribute to staff time or direct funding to support projects on the 10 year Action Plan. 4. Develop new habitat and watershed protection programs to meet regional needs: 5. Connections: Support the connecting of citizens with their Landscape Resource Specialist and elected officials on sustainable natural resource management topics.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 84

Section 9: Agency and Organization Recommendations

E. Recommendations to Education Groups

1. Connections through Education: Encourage the connection of elected officials with their constituent groups through education programs. Promote and support sustainable resource education programs that connect informed citizens with elected officials. 2. Forestry Plus Focus: Use forestry as a vehicle to get at other large-scale resource issues that society faces. Combine sustainable forest management with other educational areas such as water resource, land use, economic development, etc. 3. Collegial Connections: Colleges and universities throughout the state are encouraged to connect their students and faculty with the MFRC programs.

F. Recommendations to Private Landowners and Consultants

1. Become Informed: The organizations mentioned within this document have numerous programs and resources to help landowners become more informed about sustainable management and the benefits of natural areas to our communities. All landowners are encouraged to become more knowledgeable about forest, prairie and biodiversity resources. Learning about best management practices (BMPs) is one easy way to get started. Recognize that natural resource management is a long- term endeavor and that changes on the land will generally take several years to become realized. 2. Seek Technical Assistance: While there are numerous sources of information available, landowners are encouraged to seek technical assistance to help manage their natural resources. Often a landowner may need assistance from many technical service providers. Start with the Landscape Resource Specialist. Understand your property within the watershed context. Have your technical assistance reference this plan and its more detailed Comprehensive Conservation Plans. 3. Get Involved: The Committee members contributed many hours of time to develop this Plan. While they were not always in agreement, voicing their concerns and sharing their ideas has helped generate many new opportunities to improve natural resources and the quality of life in the Root River watershed. They have taken a big first step to get involved. All citizens and landowners are encouraged to get involved in their communities and help promote sustainable natural resource management. Improve your natural resources through planning and participation in the 10 year Action Plan activities.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 85

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Priority Areas

Sections 10 and 11 of this plan take a more detailed look at two priority areas, called Conservation Opportunity Areas, within the Root River Watershed. These two Conservation Opportunity Areas were chosen because they include concentrations of rare natural features, they include both public and private lands, and they are large enough that conservation actions can make a real difference. It is hoped that in the future additional Conservation Opportunity Plans will be developed for other priority areas within the watershed.

Section 10: Pine Creek-Rushford Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Phase 1. Core Opportunity Area (COA) selection

The selection of the Pine Creek-Rushford COA began with a survey of the features of ecological interest that were consistent with the overall goals of the parent stewardship plan. The goals of the Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan were 1) to conserve areas of high biodiversity and distinctive geology while 2) managing areas that protect watershed health and water quality. In order to identify these features and their distribution, a survey of the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) was conducted and a spatial examination was made of natural resource databases in the ArcGIS platform.

Examples of biodiversity indicators in the Root River watershed included native plant communities as identified by the Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS), rare plant species, and wildlife species of greatest conservation need (SGCN); examples of distinctive geology included karst features such as sink holes, stream sinks, springs and caves. A similar viewing of hydrologic data layers illustrated pathways of surface hydrology existing on the landscape. Identification of the waterways in which the features of biodiversity and geologic interest were nested showed linkages and suggested a shape for the COA that was consistent with ecological function.

Another approach for viewing hydrologic systems was garnered from the USGS HUC watershed unit maps. This system divides the United States into successively smaller hydrologic units (drainage areas) that are nested within each other. Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code. The Root River watershed is identified as a HUC 8 level watershed, and is further divided into minor sub-watersheds. This perspective allowed for identification of source areas that influence water quality – flow areas that contribute waters and materials to larger waterways during runoff events. See http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. The boundaries of these units also helped to establish a COA outline around the selected concentrations of conservation features.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 86

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

A topographic perspective provided a landscape level platform upon which the previous features exist. Topography is a major contributor to drainage pathways, a driver for the development of ecological communities, and a factor in human land use patterns, especially in the Blufflands. It therefore functioned as a natural spacial delineator that was helpful in visualizing the COA boundary.

The previous three layers were incorporated – the areas of biodiversity and geologic concentration, hydrology, and topography. By combining all layers of interest, the physical and functional context of the COA was created in a realistic three-dimensional model. An ideal outline was identified that followed natural boundaries suggested by the watershed units and topographic elevation lines, and incorporated the areas of greatest concentration of natural resource features. Finally, parcel ownership data was added and the COA boundary was delineated by incorporating ownership parcels on the periphery.

Phase 2. Natural Resource Assessment

Ecological Description of the Pine Creek-Rushford COA

The Pine Creek-Rushford COA is located in the east-central section of the Root River watershed, encompassing roughly 62,597 acres (Figure 14. This area lies within the Blufflands sub-section of the larger Paleozoic Plateau as designated by the Minnesota Ecological Classification System (ECS). In this area the ancient geologic, glacial, and hydrologic processes that shaped the Blufflands created a particularly concentrated water-carved topography (Map 2). Trout streams and their tributaries originating from springs and seeps feed into the Root River that meanders eastward to the Mississippi River, creating a drainage network that continues to shape the landscape. High bluffs, narrow ridges, algific talus slopes, and maderate cliffs rise above narrow and wide floodplains. Karst features are common. In addition to mature, high quality forests that cover steep hillsides, this topography supports native plant communities and rare species on the high-quality sand and bluff prairies. Today this area contributes ecological services to the wider watershed area, including surface and groundwater filtration, air purification, soil renewal, and maintenance of native plant and animal populations. The Minnesota Biological Survey has identified and mapped native plant community remnants on both public and private lands that appear in this site. The following information is summarized from MBS ecological evaluations and the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) database.

Unique Geologic Features The site is geologically significant for its exposed Paleozoic Era bedrock strata and its north-facing cold air slopes. Bedrock layers exposed in eroded river valleys were laid down between 360 and 540 million years ago in ancient seas during the Cambrian period. Cliffs and bedrock outcrops on the bluffs expose layers of formations of the later Ordovician period, with limestone, dolomite and

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 87

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

sandstone especially prevalent in five formations: the Franconia Formations, St. Lawrence, Jordan Sandstone, Oneota Dolomite, and Shakopee (from bottom to top).

In the Pine-Hemingway Creek area, cold air trapped in fissures in the Oneota Dolomite layer create suitable conditions for algific talus slope and maderate cliff communities that support rare snail species. These systems include sinkhole features on the uplands, generally within 1/4 mile of the slopes, necessary for air circulation into the fissures. These communities and snails are glacial relicts, found nowhere else in the world except on cold air slopes in the Paleozoic Plateau. Here also yellow birch and Canada yew appear, highly disjunct from their more northern distributions.

Karst topography underlies much of this area, formed over eons by acidic rainwater that percolated through the soil and dissolved the soft underlying rocks, leading to the formation of caverns and sinkholes. Caves occur beneath the ground's surface, including two that have been explored. Hermanson's Cave is located in the zone of contact between the Shakopee and Oneota Dolomite Formations and has several openings. This cave is too exposed to be suitable as a bat hibernaculum. Pine Valley Cave, a locally important bat hibernaculum, is in the Oneota Dolomite formation and is entered through a sinkhole and 5-meter chimney (Figure 16 ).

Hydrology Groundwater moving along the interface between the Oneota Dolomite and Jordan Sandstone emerges as seeps and small springs in many areas. A subsurface springshed feeds Rush Creek on the north; a surface springshed feeds the origins of Daley Creek in the south. Springshed mapping is ongoing, with only a small portion of the COA completed at this time. Additional groundwater discharge sporadically occurs directly from the Jordan Sandstone aquifer. These serve as source waters for many streams including thirteen state-designated trout streams and their contributing creeks that occur within the site (Table 3). Many other streams that do not meet this water quality standard also run through this area. The Root River, flowing east toward the Mississippi River, is the primary drainage pathway into which all tributaries eventually empty (Figure 16). Portions of headwater tributaries and approximately 5 miles of the lower Root River have been straightened and in many areas the agricultural fields are cultivated near the riverbank, susceptible to frequent flooding. Table 3. Perennial streams and lengths within Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Mileage within Trout Stream Perennial Streams COA Designation Big Springs Creek 5.2 yes Borson Spring 0.6 yes Camp Hayward Creek 2.7 yes Coolridge Creek 2.6 yes

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 88

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Daley Creek 6.0 yes Diamond Creek 7.6 yes Diamond Creek, South Fork 4.1 yes Ferndale Creek 5.8 yes Gribben Creek 6.0 no Hemingway Creek 6.3 yes Lobland Valley Creek 1.8 no Pine Creek 24.4 yes Raven Creek 6.6 no Right Branch Creek 4.0 yes Root River 60 no Rush Creek 23.5 yes Schueler Creek 4.0 yes Voelker Brook 1.5 no Unnamed Creeks (138) 104.5 yes, no Total perennial stream length 277 miles

Soils The complex patterning of soil types is a major factor influencing plant distribution. Plainfield sand, primarily on terraces, and loess top the slopes and ridges. Soils on the mid-slopes are nutrient deficient, shallow, and rocky, often with a sandy component due to weathering of the sandstone bedrock. Mid-slope soils are the most droughty, especially on south and west faces. Lower slopes have a deeper soil that has accumulated as material from above has moved down slope. This colluvial soil is fairly rich in nutrients and retains water fairly well supporting mesic microhabitats even on south and west faces. Deposits of sand from old glacial advances farther upstream form terraces at the base of bluffs along the Root River. Sand terraces can be found up the valleys of a number of the larger tributary streams as well. The upper third of many slopes has outcrops of Shakopee limestone which disintegrates into numerous cobblestones, and sometimes forms talus slopes.

Plainfield sand, a well-drained outwash deposit with a high capacity for moisture retention, is infrequently interspersed among other soils derived from the more usual wind-blown silts and loess. Easterly to south-easterly winds pick up fine sand off floodplains and deposit fine particles of eolian sand on the bluff crests and upper ridge slopes. Notably evident at Money Creek Bluff and Magelssen Bluff above Rushford, this process enlarges an otherwise limited habitat of barrens sand prairies and oak savannas.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 89

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Loess, the principle parent material for soils within the Paleozoic Plateau, is fine silt that caps most bedrock throughout the region. Deposition erosion has accumulated loess as colluvium with other materials within ravines and at the bases of slopes. These areas tend to receive more water and retain it longer through the growing season. Inclusions of mesic forests develop in the moist areas, in stark contrast to the drier plant communities of savannas, barrens prairies, and fire-dependent forests occurring on slopes and terraces.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 90

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 14. Pine Creek-Rushford Conservation Opportunity Area within the Root River watershed.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 91

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 15. Hillshade digital elevation model for the Pine Creek-Rushford COA illustrating topography.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 92

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 16. Hydrology and Karst features of Pine Creek-Rushford COA. Springsheds are those mapped to date.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 93

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Plant Communities

This COA is a heterogeneous composite of floodplain and upland forests, savannas, prairies, and cliffs. The modern distribution of each plant community has been determined by the complex terrain, available soil moisture, and past and present land use. A photographic aerial view of the COA shows the majority cover type as deciduous forest (Figure 17). High-quality forests and other native plant community remnants are buffered by areas of degraded woods, primarily disturbed oak forest, oak woodland, and lowland hardwood forest. The Minnesota Biological Survey has identified and mapped native plant community remnants on both public and private lands (Table 2; Figure 18). These NPC total roughly 7,980 acres, or 12.75% of all acreage within the site. While over half of all native plant community remnants are found on lands managed by the Minnesota DNR, a significant portion have been identified in private ownership (Figure 19), demonstrating the need for private lands cooperative work in the preservation of native plant communities. Descriptions of the native plant community systems that appear in this site follow the table and maps.

Table 4. Native Plant Communities of Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Percent of Native Plant Community NPC Code System Acreage Total NPC in COA Southern Dry Cliff CTs12 Cliff/Talus 127.8 Southern Open Talus CTs23 Cliff/Talus 5.2 Southern Mesic Cliff CTs33 Cliff/Talus 12.7 Mesic Limestone - Dolomite Cliff (Southern) CTs33b Cliff/Talus 10.0 Maderate Cliff: Dolomite Subtype CTs43a2 Cliff/Talus 1.2 Algific Talus: Dolomite Subtype CTs46a2 Cliff/Talus 6.9 Total acreage of Cliff/Talus system 163.8 2.05 Jack Pine - Oak Woodland (Sand) FDs27a Fire Dependent 3.6 White Pine - Oak Woodland (Sand) FDs27b Fire Dependent 51.6 Black Oak - White Oak Woodland (Sand) FDs27c Fire Dependent 237.1 Oak - Shagbark Hickory Woodland FDs38a Fire Dependent 1008.7 Total acreage of Fire Dependent system 1301 16.31 Elm - Ash - Basswood Terrace Forest FFs59c Floodplain Forest 451.0 Total acreage of Floodplain Forest system 451 5.65 White Pine - Sugar Maple - Basswood Forest (Cold Slope) MHc38a Mesic Hardwood Forest 8.6 Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest MHs37 Mesic Hardwood Forest 180.6

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 94

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Red Oak - White Oak Forest MHs37a Mesic Hardwood Forest 29.4 Red Oak - White Oak - (Sugar Maple) Forest MHs37b Mesic Hardwood Forest 2769.9 White Pine - Oak - Sugar Maple Forest MHs38a Mesic Hardwood Forest 79.4 Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory) Forest MHs38c Mesic Hardwood Forest 626.6 Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest MHs39 Mesic Hardwood Forest 3.4 Sugar Maple - Basswood - Red Oak - (Blue Beech) Forest MHs39b Mesic Hardwood Forest 976.4 Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest MHs49 Mesic Hardwood Forest 62.3 Elm - Basswood - Black Ash - (Blue Beech) Forest MHs49b Mesic Hardwood Forest 277.5 Total acreage of Mesic Hardwood Forest system 5014.1 62.84 Sand Beach/Sandbar (River) RVx32b River Shore 28.0 Total acreage of River Shore system 28 0.35 Dry Barrens Prairie (Southern) UPs13a Upland Prairie 49.6 Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern) UPs13c Upland Prairie 589.6 Southern Dry Savanna UPs14 Upland Prairie 4.3 Dry Barrens Oak Savanna (Southern): Jack Pine Subtype UPs14a1 Upland Prairie 4.5 Dry Barrens Oak Savanna (Southern): Oak Subtype UPs14a2 Upland Prairie 364.8 Total acreage of Upland Prairie system 1012.8 12.69 Black Ash - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Blue Beech) Seepage Swamp WFs57b Wet Forest 0.7 Total acreage of Wet Forest system 0.7 0.008 Seepage Meadow/Carr WMs83a Wet Meadow/Carr 7.5 Total acreage of Wet Meadow/Carr 7.5 0.094 Total Acres in Native Plant Community 7978.9

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 95

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 17. Aerial view of Pine Creek-Rushford COA, showing the extent of forest cover within the boundary.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 96

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 18. Native plant communities of Pine Creek-Rushford COA identified and mapped by the Minnesota Biological Survey.

Acreage and descriptions of NPC codes appear in Table 4 and the following text.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 97

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 19. Native plant communities of Pine Creek-Rushford COA that lie on private parcels outside of state-managed lands, demonstrating the opportunity for private lands cooperative work in native plant community preservation.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 98

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Cliff/Talus (CTs43a2, CTs46a2) Algific talus slopes (CTs46a2) and maderate cliffs (CTs43a2) are extremely rare and fragile natural communities. They are present in only a few small areas in the northern branch of the COA, situated above Pine, Coolridge and Hemingway Creeks. These are cool, moist, moss-dominated plant communities on shaded northwest- to northeast-facing cliffs in karst landscapes. Their continued health is based on intact geologic and hydrologic systems that support ice accumulation in caves and air passages in the bedrock, allowing cold air to flow to the surface. Though similar, algific talus slopes and maderate cliffs are distinct in physical structure and temperature, allowing a different suite of species to populate each. These cold, wet microclimates persist throughout the summer, where moss-dominated plant communities on shaded northwest- to northeast-facing cliffs support northern plants uncommon in southern Minnesota. Groundwater seepage varies from barely detectable to localized flows emanating from crevices to water visibly dripping over the rock face. Limited nutrient availability and stress on plants growing outward from vertical surfaces influence composition and structure of vegetation. Exposed bedrock on cliff faces is dominated by mosses, liverworts and algae. Lichens are common on exposed bedrock in drier areas. Pleistocene vertigo (Vertigo hubrichi variabilis n. subsp.), a rare snail species occurring on algific talus slopes and maderate cliffs, is found nowhere else in the world except the Paleozoic Plateau. This species is extremely small and is limited in Minnesota to these highly specialized sites, relying on continual cold air and the absence of disturbances from foot traffic or logging.

Dry Cliffs (CTs12, CTs23, CTs33) These are open, lichen-dominated plant communities on dry, sunny south- to west-facing cliffs in rugged terrain. CTs12 (Southern Dry Cliff community) is widely represented throughout the COA, most frequently found in the southwestern branch above Big Springs and Diamond Creeks. CTs23 (Southern Open Talus) and CTs33 (Southern Mesic Cliff) are present only at a few scattered sites. Cliffs on upper slopes are mostly formed on Oneota dolomite bedrock. Jordan Sandstone forms the base of many of these upper slope cliffs. Exposures occur on all aspects and slope positions, though most are prevalent on mid to upper slopes. Canopy cover varies from completely exposed (mostly south-facing) to completely shaded (especially north-facing). The rock faces are variously fractured, though large unbroken sections are common. Small ledges with shallow accumulations of soil are also common. Crustose lichens are patchy on the rock faces.

Typical Dry Cliff flora is best developed in sunny locations. Plants are mostly restricted to crevices and ledges. Typical species include harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), smooth cliff-brake (Pellaea glabella), tall wormwood (Artemisia campestris), bush juniper (Juniperus communis), columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), plains muhly (Muhlenbergia cuspidate), and the rare cliff goldenrod (Solidago sciaphila). Bulblet fern (Crystopteris bulbifera) often forms dense patches on shady cliff ledges, and common polypody (Polypodium virginianum) forms dense patches atop north-facing cliffs. Sunny cliffs can support a population of the rare rock sandwort (Minuartia dawsonensis).

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 99

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Fire Dependent Forest (FDs27, FDs38) These are dry-mesic or dry hardwood or pine-hardwood woodlands on bluffland sand deposits. FDs27 communities (Southern Dry- Mesic Pine-Oak Woodland types) are extremely rare and present in only a few small inclusions in the central COA. However, FDs38 (Southern Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Woodland) is well represented throughout the COA. Historically mild surface fires occurred about every 15 years, with catastrophic fire returns of roughly 135 years. These areas have patchy to interrupted canopy, some woody understory plants, and a ground layer dominated by woodland grasses and forbs with prairie species in small canopy openings. Jack pine-oak woodland (sand) communities include half-shrub and ground-layer plants such as pipsissewa (Chimaphila umbellate), lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium,) pussytoes (Antennaria neglecta), bluets (Hedyotis longifilia), round-headed bush- clover (Lespedeza capitata), hairy puccoon (Lithospermum carolinense), and starry false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina stellata). White pine-oak woodland (sand) communities contains herbaceous plants such as wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), zigzag goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis), common enchanter’s nightshade (Circaea lutetiana), harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), bastard toadflax (Comandra umbellata), and carrion flowers (Smilax spp.)

Floodplain Forests (FFs59c) Floodplain forests are common along the Root River, as well as along Rush, Camp Hayward, Diamond, and Gribben Creeks. Periodic river and stream flooding historically maintained floodplain forests and open river beaches. Riparian forests on silty or sandy alluvium were once dominated by various combinations of black ash (Fraxinus nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silver maple (Acer sacharinum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American elm (Ulmus americana), basswood (Tilia americana), box elder (Acer negundo), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and sometimes swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). However, heavily impacted by intensive logging and grazing, few mature floodplain forests and lowland hardwoods remain. Most are small fragments of young, early successional woodlands that occur sporadically along the riverbank or in wet corners of cultivated fields. In general, there is a gradual descent in elevation from the footslopes of the bluffs with well-drained soils to wet depressions and channels where wood nettle (Laportea candensis) thickly covers the muddy ground. Common plants include Clayton's sweet cicely (Osmorhiza claytonii), cleavers (Galium aparine), false rue-anemone, cow-parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), common blue violet (Viola sororia),Virginia waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum), and Virginia knotweed (Polygonum virginianum).

Where the seeps are extensive and run through open, sedge-dominated areas, they are classified as seepage meadow communities. WMs83a (Seepage Meadow/Carr) is present only at a few sites along the floodplains of Hemingway and Pine Creeks. Where seeps run through forested swamps, they are classified as mixed hardwood seepage swamps. WFs57b (Black Ash-Sugar Maple-Basswood- (Blue Beech) Seepage Swamp) is present only at a few sites along the floodplains of Hemingway and Pine Creeks. All of these areas of lowland hardwood forests, swamp forests, streams, and seeps provide critical habitat for the rare birds found in this site. Mesic hardwood forest (MHs37, MHs38, MHs39, MHs49)

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 100

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Overall, mesic hardwood forests are the most prevalent native plant community types in this site, collectively comprising 45.7% of native plant community acreage. Species composition is variable depending on soil moisture and aspect. MHs37b (Red Oak-White Oak-(Sugar Maple), MHs38c (Red Oak-Sugar Maple-Basswood-(Bitternut Hickory), and MHs39b (Sugar Maple-Basswood-Red Oak- (Blue Beech) are the largest native plant community types in both distribution and acreage. MHs37 (Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest), MHs37a (Red Oak-White Oak Forest), and MHs39 (Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood) are present only in the Coolridge and Pine Creek areas. MHs49 (Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood) and MHs49b (Elm-Basswood-Black Ash-(Blue Beech) are less common but present in both the northern and southern arms of the COA. Common canopy species include bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), basswood, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), black ash, black walnut (Juglans nigra), red elm (Ulmus rubra), American elm, and sugar maple. Regeneration of the oak component is uncertain owing to the lack of oak seedling establishment. Understory trees and shrub species include hackberry, ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), pagoda dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), chokecherry (Prunus viriniana), American hazel (Corylus americana), gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa), downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum), and nannyberry (Viburnum lentago). The moderately diverse ground layer is dominated by common forest plants including Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), pointed-leaved tick-trefoil (Desmodium glutinosum), and honewort (Cryptotaenia canadensis). Spring ephemerals such as Dutchman’s breeches (Dicentra cucullaria) and two-leaved miterwort (Mitella diphylla) are more common in the mesic settings. Many sites harbor populations of the threatened plant species stemless tick trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum).

White Pine - Sugar Maple - Basswood Forest (Cold Slope) MHc38a A very rare forest type to be found this far south, the northern hardwood-conifer and white pine-hardwood forests of MHc38a are present at only two sites along Hemingway and Pine Creeks on the steepest (70 to 80 percent) slopes. Northern hardwood-conifer forests, separated from their more usual northerly distribution, occur on the cool, steep north-facing slopes and include several plant species generally found much further north: white pine (Pinus strobus), yellow birch (Betula allegheniensis), Canada yew (Taxus canadensis), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), and twisted stalk (Streptopus roseus). The northern hardwood-conifer forests are mature, excellent quality stands supporting several rare plant species. White pine-hardwood forests are found on moist to dry steep slopes and include species characteristic of oak and maple-basswood forests along with white pine.

Southern Dry Prairie (UPs13) Dry Barrens Prairie (Southern) (UPs13a) is widely scattered throughout the COA on level to steeply sloping sites with droughty soils. Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern) (UPs 13c) has a much greater presence through the COA, especially on the bluffs above the Root River, and Rush and Pine Creeks. Moderate moisture deficits occur most years, with a historic fire interval of every few years. Dry bluff prairies, also known as “goat prairies”, occupy upper slopes on south to west facing slopes with bedrock outcrops that sometimes become cliffs greater than 15 feet in height. Moisture conditions vary from extremely dry (xeric) on the steepest mid and

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 101

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

upper slopes to fairly mesic on more gradual lower slopes. The plant community is dominated by native grasses and sedges, and forbs are common and diverse. The powdery silt and sandy soils of xeric portions is very rocky and often at most a few inches deep.

Despite the harsh climatic conditions, several microhabitats (some quite mesic) are found within the prairies, giving the overall vegetation a patchy-mosaic appearance. These microhabitats are especially important for the persistence of typically mesic prairie plants such as compass plant (Silphium laciniatum). The best areas have large openings dominated by several different grass species, most notably prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) and little bluestem. Some patches are dominated by big bluestem and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans). Elsewhere, thin soils over bedrock are sparsely vegetated with dryer grasses such as poverty dropseed (Sporobolus vaginiflorus) and hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsute). In addition, loose sand or residuum forms at the base of sandstone outcrops creating small areas of sand barrens with some of the previously mentioned barrens species.

Where palatable forbs and native shrubs are abundant in bluff prairies, severe livestock grazing was not indicated. The dry, rocky soil is inhabited by many flowering forbs including showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa), purple prairie clover (Petalostemon purpureum), cylindric blazing star (Liatris cylindracea), greenmilkweed (Asclepias viridiflora), downy paintbrush (Castilleja sessiliflora), plains wild indigo (Baptisia bracteata), lead-plant (Amorpha canescens), and compass-plant . Several native shrubs exhibit clonal growth, including wild plum (Prunus americana), prairie willow (Salix humilis) and ninebark. Bush juniper (Juniperus communis var. depressa) grows slowly over the thin, rocky soils. In general, bluff prairies are diminishing in size due to woody encroachment by common plants such as trembling aspen (Populous tremuloides), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra). The quality of bluff prairies is determined primarily according to the relative percentage of herbaceous cover free of woody plants and the predominance of natives. A program of prescribed burning is necessary to prevent them from crowding out the prairie.

Longtime residents throughout the Blufflands region recount how the bluffs have grown up to woods. Up until the 1960s, many bluffs were burned every spring mostly to increase the forage value for livestock. Since burning has stopped, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) has been one of the most aggressive bluff prairie invaders. Many once-open bluffs throughout the region are now dense groves of red cedar. Heavy past grazing has also exacerbated the red cedar problem. Livestock grazing reduces a prairie’s plant diversity and also disrupts and compacts the soil making it easier for invasive species such as red cedar and some aggressive non- native plants to become established.

Southern Dry Savanna (UPs14) These communities are not as well represented as Southern Dry Prairie communities. UPs14 is present at only one site above Pine Creek; UPs14a1 (Dry Barrens Oak Savanna: Jack Pine Subtype) is present only at one site above the central reach of the Root River. However, UPs14a2 (Dry Barrens Oak Savanna: Oak Subtype) has a larger presence in the eastern half of the COA. Barrens savanna

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 102

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

communities are sparsely treed with grass-dominated herbaceous ground layers on nearly level to steeply sloping sites and sand terraces. Moderate moisture deficits are common, and historically fires were frequent. Oak savannas are dominated by northern pin oaks or bur oaks. This community type is a composite of true savanna, woodland and oak forest inclusions. The quality of the oak savannas varies due to past logging and the abundance of regenerating woody vegetation. Invasion by woody plants reduce openings dominated by native prairie grasses and forbs. Prairie openings are frequent within this plant community and are very diverse floristically. These inclusions are usually less than 10-20 meters in diameter and are often shaded for most of the day. These areas are sparsely vegetated but are a significant component of the area’s biodiversity, including big bluestem (Andropogen gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and June grass (Koeleria macrantha). Present also may be shrubs including brambles (Rubus spp.), gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa), New Jersey tea (Ceanothus herbaceous) and ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius).

Rare Species Rare species are those currently identified as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS). A species is considered endangered if the species is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within Minnesota. A species is considered threatened if the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range within Minnesota. A species is considered a species of special concern if, although the species is not endangered or threatened, it is extremely uncommon in Minnesota, or has unique or highly specific habitat requirements and deserves careful monitoring of its status. In addition, there is a ‘non’ category that refers to a plant or animal species with no legal status, but for which data are being compiled in the NHIS because of potential concern. The native plant communities in Pine Creek-Rushford COA provide habitat for 59 rare plant species, 18 rare animal species, and 1 rare animal assemblage. This site currently supports populations of 7 endangered, 19 threatened, 35 special concern, and 17 non-listed species (Table 5; Figure 20).

Table 5. Rare vascular plant and animal species within Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Common name Scientific name Life category Status Habitat

Smooth Rock-cress Arabis laevigata Vascular plant NON Cliffs Jewelled Shooting Star Dodecatheon amethystinum Vascular plant NON Cliffs Purple Cliff-brake Pellaea atropurpurea Vascular plant SPC Cliffs Rock Sandwort Minuartia dawsonensis Vascular plant SPC Rock outcrop Cliff Goldenrod Solidago sciaphila Vascular plant SPC Cliffs/Dry prairie Blunt-lobed Grapefern Botrychium oneidense Vascular plant END Fire-dependent forest Stemless Tick-trefoil Desmodium nudiflorum Vascular plant SPC Fire-dependent forest

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 103

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Upland Boneset Eupatorium sessilifolium Vascular plant THR Fire-dependent forest Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana Vascular plant SPC Fire-dependent forest American Ginseng Panax quinquefolius Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Beaked Snakeroot Sanicula trifoliata Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest White Baneberry Actaea pachypoda Vascular plant NON Mesic hardwood forest Moschatel Adoxa moschatellina Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Nodding Wild Onion Allium cernuum Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest Short's Aster Aster shortii Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest Carey's Sedge Carex careyana Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest James' Sedge Carex jamesii Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest Spreading Sedge Carex laxiculmis Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest Wood's Sedge Carex woodii Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Silvery Spleenwort Deparia acrostichoides Vascular plant NON Mesic hardwood forest Squirrel-corn Dicentra canadensis Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Narrow-leaved Spleenwort Diplazium pycnocarpon Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest Goldie's Fern Dryopteris goldiana Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Green Violet Hybanthus concolor Vascular plant NON Mesic hardwood forest Broad Beech-fern Phegopteris hexagonoptera Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest Three-leaved Coneflower Rudbeckia triloba Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Ovate-leaved Skullcap Scutellaria ovata var. versicolor Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest Snow Trillium Trillium nivale Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Silverleaf Grape Vitis aestivalis Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Ebony Spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron Vascular plant SPC Mesic hardwood forest Marginal Shield-fern Dryopteris marginalis Vascular plant THR Mesic hardwood forest Great Indian-plantain Arnoglossum reniforme Vascular plant NON Wet forest Smooth-sheathed Sedge Carex laevivaginata Vascular plant THR Wet forest False Mermaid Floerkea proserpinacoides Vascular plant THR Wet forest Golden-seal Hydrastis canadensis Vascular plant END Mesic prairie Ticklegrass Agrostis hyemalis Vascular plant NON Prairie Tuberous Indian-plantain Arnoglossum plantagineum Vascular plant THR Prairie Sea-beach Needlegrass Aristida tuberculosa Vascular plant SPC Dry prairie

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 104

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Clasping Milkweed Asclepias amplexicaulis Vascular plant SPC Dry prairie Plains Wild Indigo Baptisia bracteata var. glabrescens Vascular plant SPC Dry prairie Hill's Thistle Cirsium pumilum var. hillii Vascular plant SPC Dry prairie Canada Frostweed Helianthemum canadense Vascular plant NON Dry prairie Long-bearded Hawkweed Hieracium longipilum Vascular plant NON Dry prairie Narrow-leaved Pinweed Lechea tenuifolia var. tenuifolia Vascular plant END Dry prairie Old Field Toadflax Linaria canadensis Vascular plant NON Dry prairie Lilia-leaved Twayblade Liparis liliifolia Vascular plant NON Dry prairie Three-flowered Melicgrass Melica nitens Vascular plant THR Dry prairie Rhombic-petaled Evening Primrose Oenothera rhombipetala Vascular plant SPC Dry prairie Clustered Broomrape Orobanche fasciculata Vascular plant SPC Dry prairie Canadian Forked Chickweed Paronychia canadensis Vascular plant THR Dry prairie Slender-leaved Scurf Pea Psoralidium tenuiflorum Vascular plant END Dry prairie Rough-seeded Fameflower Talinum rugospermum Vascular plant END Dry prairie Goat's-rue Tephrosia virginiana Vascular plant SPC Dry prairie Sweet-smelling Indian-plantain Hasteola suaveolens Vascular plant END Sedge meadow Clinton's Bulrush Scirpus clintonii Vascular plant SPC Sedge meadow Valerian Valeriana edulis var. ciliata Vascular plant THR Sedge meadow Purple Rocket Iodanthus pinnatifidus Vascular plant END Wet meadow Glade Mallow Napaea dioica Vascular plant THR Wet meadow Snowy Campion Silene nivea Vascular plant THR Wet meadow Bat Concentration Bat Colony Animal assemblage NON Cave Tricolored Bat Pipistrellus subflavus Vertebrate animal SPC Cave North American Racer Coluber constrictor Vertebrate animal THR Rock bluff Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Vertebrate animal SPC Rock bluff Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platirhinos Vertebrate animal NON Prairie/Floodplain forest Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum Vertebrate animal NON Rock bluff Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer Vertebrate animal NON Bluff prairie Gravel Chub Erimystax x-punctata Vertebrate animal SPC Aquatic American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix Vertebrate animal NON Aquatic Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Vertebrate animal SPC Aquatic

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 105

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Vertebrate animal Floodplain Pickerel Frog Lithobates palustris SPC forest/Stream Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Vertebrate animal SPC Mesic hardwood forest Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Vertebrate animal NON Mesic hardwood forest Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Vertebrate animal SPC Mesic hardwood forest Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea Vertebrate animal SPC Mesic hardwood forest Sandy Stream Tiger Beetle Cicindela macra macra Invertebrate animal SPC Floodplain/streams Leonard's Skipper Hesperia leonardus leonardus Invertebrate animal SPC Sand barrens A Jumping Spider Phidippus apacheanus Invertebrate animal NON Oak savanna Hubricht's Vertigo Vertigo hubrichti Invertebrate animal NON Algific cliff/talus slope

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 106

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 20. Rare species occurrences (plants and wildlife) and MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance within the

Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 107

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Rare Plants

The following paragraphs describe those habitats in the COA that contain the largest concentrations of rare plants. The wet-mesic maple-basswood forested north to east-facing slopes and the adjacent lowland hardwood forests have significant concentrations of rare plants. The only known occurrence of the endangered plant green violet (Viola concolor) occurs in these habitats in the COA. Other rare plants in these habitats in the site include Short's aster (Aster shortii), nodding wild onion (Allium cernuum), Wood's sedge (Carex woodii), moschatel (Adoxa moschatellina), silvery spleenwort (Deparia acrostichoides), Carey's sedge (Carex careyana), James' sedge (Carex jamesii), spreading sedge (Carex laxiculmis), narrow-leaved spleenwort (Diplazium (Athyrium) pycnocarpon), and squirrel-corn (Dicentra canadensi). Mesic oak forests closer to ridge tops are home to Goldie's fern (Dryopteris goldiana), beaked snakeroot (Sanicula trifoliata), American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), upland boneset (Eupatorium sessilifolium), and witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Seepage streams that wind through lowland hardwood forests provide important habitat for false mermaid (Floerkea proserpinacoides) and smooth-sheathed sedge (Carex laevivaginata).

Unique geologic features provide niche habitat for a number of rare plant species. Cliff goldenrod (Solidago sciaphila) and rock sandwort (Minuartia dawsonensis) occur atop dry sandstone and dolomite cliffs and pillars. Drip zones at the base of shaded north- facing cliffs house the jeweled shooting star (Dodecatheon amethystinum).

Outwash sands supporting barrens prairie and barrens oak savanna provide habitat for many rare plants and animals. This COA contains the only known occurrences in the state of two of these species: winter bentgrass (Agrostis hyemalis) and Candian forked chickweed (Paronychia canadensis). Other rare plants in barrens prairies and savannas in the site include rough-seeded fameflower (Talinum rugospermum), clasping milkweed (Asclepias amplexicaulis), goat’s-rue (Tephrosia virginiana), cliff goldenrod (Solidago sciaphila), three-flowered melicgrass (Melica nitens), and Canada frostweed (Helianthemum canadense).

Remnants of bluff prairie provide habitat for prairie species that have historically been maintained with fire and now face competition from woody and grassland invasives. Bluff prairies in this site provide habitat for a number of rare plant and animal species; the plant species include slender-leaved scurf-pea (Psoralidium tenuiflora), valerian (Valeriana edulis ssp. ciliata), Hill’s thistle (Cirsium hillii), plains wild indigo (Baptisia bracteata var glabrescens), and clustered broomrape (Orobanche fasciculata).

Rare Wildlife The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) has been documented along the western edge of a thirty-mile stretch of bluff prairies and forested habitat along the Root River. This stretch contains the largest remaining concentration of timber rattlesnakes in Minnesota, and includes excellent den and foraging areas. This concentration depends on the dry, south to west-facing bluffs of the Root River and major tributaries. In order to maintain viable populations of timber rattlesnakes, it is necessary to protect den sites as well as the surrounding forests and rock outcrops. Restoration of bluff prairie and savanna would increase den habitat for snakes.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 108

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Rattlesnakes prefer den sites beneath rock ledges on open bluff prairies. The sunny outcrops warm more quickly in early spring causing the snakes to become active sooner than snakes hibernating in shaded dens. After leaving the winter dens in May, adult timber rattlesnakes may wander up to several miles (less for females) during the summer months feeding on rodents in surrounding hardwood forests, especially bottomland forests. Gravid (pregnant) females stay on the bluff near the den during the summer where they use rookery rocks for thermoregulation and a birth place for their young.

Rattlesnakes are frequently observed crossing roads or trails. Rattlesnakes that attempt to move across extensive openings or near human dwellings are vulnerable to predators and human persecution. Barriers such as busy roads also limit this species’ dispersal ability. The resulting isolated populations face increasing risks of local extirpation. One possibly emerging threat to timber rattlesnakes in Minnesota is the fungal dermatitis Chrysosporium ophiodiicola. Although this threat is not yet fully understood, there is some evidence to suggest that the fungus has far more devastating impacts in genetically isolated and/or inbred populations. Maintaining as much natural gene flow among Minnesota populations by minimizing barriers such as roads, may be crucial in conserving this state threatened species in Minnesota. The fungus was confirmed on Minnesota rattlesnakes in summer 2012 (Smith et. al., In Press).

The gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer), also known as the bullsnake, occurs in open grasslands and savannas associated with sandy or rocky soils. Gophersnakes in south-eastern Minnesota often over-winter in the same dens as timber rattlesnakes, thus making the preservation of winter hibernacula key to this species’ conservation as well. The milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos), North American racer (Coluber constrictor), and five-lined skink (Plestiodon fasciatus) are species that also utilize south to west facing bluff prairies. These species also make use of nearby forested habitat for parts of their life cycles.

Diverse forested and open habitats are required for the range of bird species that inhabit and migrate through the Pine Creek-Rushford COA. Alluvial forests with their varied tree heights and abundant berry-producing shrubs are important areas for bird species that live, hunt, and nest in particular forest strata. Similarly, prairie and oak savanna are important habitat for grassland birds. Different strata also provide more habitats for insects, an important food for breeding populations. Old live trees and standing snags are important to cavity nesting species. Cottonwoods are important for large roosting birds such as the bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalis) because they support large nests. The most important habitat features for many rare species in this area are the large relatively unfragmented nature of the forest, the intact lowland hardwood forest in the valleys, and the presence of clear, fast-moving streams. Louisiana waterthrushes (Seiurus motacilla) require clear, flowing streams, steep-sided valleys, and adjacent mature deciduous forest, including a relatively closed canopy over the streams for breeding habitat. Acadian flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) and cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea) are also associated with mature forests and are often found near streams.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 109

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Caves in the area are important hibernaculum for the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), a special concern bat species. The species little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), a more common bat species, is proposed to be listed as a special concern species due to the threat of White-nose Syndrome. It has been observed foraging over local streams in large numbers during summer, suggesting a maternity colony may be located in the vicinity. These colonies frequently occur in hollow tree trunks along stream edges. Bats are another of Minnesota’s fauna that will require special attention in years to come. Extraordinary efforts should be made to protect and maintain all of Minnesota’s cave roosting bats against the time that White-nose Syndrome arrives in Minnesota.

Healthy populations of pickerel frogs (Lithobates palustris) are found in lowland hardwood forests in the Pine-Hemingway Creek drainage. Pickerel frogs also use areas of open vegetation such as wet meadows. This species is on the edge of its range in southeast Minnesota, and requires good forest cover adjacent to clear, cool, flowing streams. Extensive logging of lowland hardwood forests could impact populations.

A rare snail species, the variable Pleistocene vertigo (Vertigo hubrichti), occurs on algific talus slopes and maderate cliffs in the Pine- Hemingway Creek area. This species is extremely small, with a shell about 2mm long, and is limited in Minnesota to these highly specialized sites. It is most common on cold undisturbed and well-forested sites in or immediately in front of open cold air vents in small patches of decaying deciduous tree leaves. It is found nowhere else in the world except the Paleozoic Plateau. This species is a candidate for federal listing as threatened and is listed as state threatened.

Two historic records of the fish species gravel chub (Erimystax x-punctata) were documented from 1945-47 in the Root River. The species was relocated in 1976 and 1984 from the same general stretch of the river. Specimens of American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix) were collected in 1988 from Rush Creek.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 110

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Phase 3: Identify land ownership and land use

Ownership

Pine Creek-Rushford COA encompasses close to 62,597 acres. Private holders are by far the largest ownership group, accounting for approximately 81% of the total acreage with 75% of parcel holdings by number. State of Minnesota ownership makes up roughly 18% of total acreage with 18% of parcel holdings. The remaining 2% of acreage is held by municipal, county, and industrial property owners (Table 6; Figures 21 and 22; Figure 23).

State-owned lands consist primarily of 9,835 acres managed by the MN DNR Division of Forestry. The Ferndale Ridge Wildlife Management Area, the Rushford Sand Barrens Scientific and Natural Area, and 26 miles of the Root River State Trail are also state- owned and managed by divisions of the DNR. Other properties within this COA for which the state retains interests are approximately 750 acres of fisheries easements (primarily angler easements along designated trout streams), 40.5 acres of prairie conservation easements, and 26 miles of public waters of the Root River designated as the Root River State Water Trail (Table 7).

Land Use

Land use within Pine Creek-Rushford COA encompasses a broad range of agricultural and recreational activities along with a large number of private residential holdings. Farming occurs on approximately 50% of private properties, with a small number of seasonal recreation and timberland holdings. Corn, hay and alfalfa, soy beans, and pasture lands are the largest agricultural commodities (Table 8; Figure 24). Within Pine Creek-Rushford COA there are 73 acres in the Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve program. In 2007, approximately 3,900 acres were enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.

The greatest extent of landscape cover is in deciduous forest where logging on both private and state forest lands occurs. State- administered forest lands within this site comprise approximately 9,800 acres. Forest management, conducted by the Division of Forestry, strives to maintain a sustainable supply of forest products and services from healthy, diverse and productive ecosystems supported by forest certification. Over 2,000 acres in this site have been designated as candidates for high conservation value forests (HCVFs), a designation required as part of Forest Certification that indicates a concentration of high conservation values such as rare species, large landscapes, and significant native plant communities (Table 9, Figure 25.

Hunting and fishing opportunities abound in over 9,000 acres of state forest lands, along 29 miles of the Root River, and throughout 750 acres of aquatic management stream conservation easements. The Ferndale Ridge Wildlife Management Area sits atop a bluff

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 111

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

planted with native grasses and food plots, with oak and central hardwood forests on the slopes. The primary game species in this site are deer, turkey, small game and pheasants. Many species of game fish inhabiting the river include smallmouth bass, channel catfish, rock bass, sunfish, crappies, and rough fish. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), native to this area, are stocked along with brown trout (Salmo trutta) in protected tributaries (Figure 26).

The Root River state trail, constructed on an abandoned railroad, bisects the COA for 29 miles, meandering on an east/west route that parallels the Root River. This asphalt trail is popular for biking, hiking, skiing, and river access. The Root River is a designated state waterway with gentle to moderate flow with a few riffles and no major rapids. The water level varies substantially with rainfall. Snowmobile trails traverse the site, maintained by local government and volunteer groups through the Grants-in-Aid program. Four snowmobile groups maintain over 314 miles of winter recreational trails. Limited off-highway vehicle use is allowed on roads and trails posted as open. A state forest campground at Vinegar Ridge has eight primitive camp sites (Figure 27).

Pine Creek-Rushford COA provides many viewing opportunities for enthusiasts of nongame wildlife. This area supports over 40 species of birds that live in the riparian, bluff, prairie and forested habitats. Forested and open areas provide varied habitat for mammals, including deer, gray fox, red fox, coyotes, raccoons, woodchucks, squirrels, weasels, and badgers. River otters and beaver can be found in the river and streams. Lizards such as the skink, racerunner, and many species of snakes, including the timber rattlesnake, inhabit the river banks and outcrops.

The unique topography of this COA provides settings for rare plants and native plant communities found nowhere else in the state. The Rushford Sand Barrens Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) contains at least 13 rare plant species and 2 globally rare native plant communities (Dry Barrens Prairie (southern) and Black Oak-White Oak Woodland (sand)). Because many of these rare species occur at the edge of their ranges, this SNA preserves important genetic, species, and community diversity. The dry-sand oak savanna contains the rare rough-seeded fameflower, clasping milkweed, sea-beach needlegrass, long-bearded hawkweed, old-field toadflax, and others. The jack pine savanna supports a number of rare plant species as well as Minnesota's southern-most population of jack pine. Sand barrens and bluff prairies host the compass plant, silky aster, downy painted cup, leadplant, blue-eyed grass, and Leonard's skullcap. Witch hazel, a species of special concern, occurs in the mixed oak forest.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 112

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Table 6. Estimated land ownership in the Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Parcels Percent of parcel Size Percent of COA Ownership (count) count (acres) acreage

Private 1,951 74.75 51,920 81.03 State 470 18.01 11,347 17.71 Municipal 117 4.48 270 0.42 County 7 0.27 55 0.09 Industry 5 0.19 4 0.01 No designated ownership 60 2.30 227 0.35 Public roads/waterways - - 250 0.39

2,611 64,073 Totals parcels acres

Table 7. Itemization of lands within Pine Creek-Rushford COA in which the state holds ownership or interests.

State Interest Interest type Area

Forestry ownership 9,835 ac Wildlife Management Area ownership 789 ac Scientific and Natural Area ownership 214 ac State Trail ownership 510 ac Fisheries easements easement, management 750 ac Prairie conservation easements easement 41 ac Total 12,139 ac State Waterway public waters 26 miles

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 113

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 21. Ownership of lands in Pine Creek-Rushford COA by number of parcels.

Figure 22. Ownership of lands in Pine Creek-Rushford COA by acreage.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 114

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 23. Parcel ownership within the Pine Creek-Rushford COA reflecting private holdings, state holdings (mapped to the forty-acre parcel), and state-held conservation easements.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 115

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Table 8. Landcover and croplands within Pine Creek-Rushford COA (data from 2010).

Percent of Percent of Land Cover Cropland total area total area Deciduous Forest 85.9 Pasture/Hay 56.9 Grassland Herbaceous 6.3 Corn 22.8 Developed/Open Space 3.7 Soybeans 10.4 Open Water 1.3 Pasture/Grass 5.3 Developed/Low Intensity 1.2 Alfalfa 4.3 Evergreen Forest 0.9 Oats 0.1 Woody Wetlands 0.4 Other Hay 0.1 Herbaceous Wetlands 0.2 Fallow/Idle Cropland 0.1 Developed/Medium Intensity 0.1 Peas < .01 Barren < .01 Sweet Corn < .01 Mixed Forest < .01 Barley < .01 Shrubland < .01 Spring Wheat < .01 Developed/High Intensity < .01

Table 9. DNR forest stand inventory by cover type and acreage. Site index and timber quality vary within each cover type.

Cover type acreage Cover type acreage

Agriculture 354 Offsite oak 522 Ash 8 Permanent water 40 Aspen 13 Ponderosa pine 5 Birch 10 Recreation 33 Central hardwoods 299 Red cedar 54 Cottonwood 20 Road 15 Cutover area 18 Rock outcrop 135 Lowland grass 35 Stagnant cedar 24 Lowland hardwoods 517 Upland brush 166 Northern hardwoods 1116 Upland grass 308 Norway pine 50 Walnut 197 Norway spruce 8 White pine 134 Oak 5565

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 116

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 24. Cropland distribution in Pine Creek-Rushford COA. The CRP data is from 2007 and the RIM data is from 2010.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 117

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 25. Department of Natural Resource Forestry Division lands (mapped to the forty-acre parcel), including High Conservation Value Forest candidates (HCVF), within Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 118

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Map 26. Hunting and fishing opportunities in the Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 119

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Map 27. Recreation trails and campgrounds in Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 120

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Environmental Threats in Pine Creek-Rushford COA

Development pressures Increasing rural and municipal development within the Pine Creek-Rushford COA reflect population trends across the country. Land parcelization continues to fragment landscapes, contributing to a loss of continuity and impairing the capacity of each parcel to deliver ecosystem services. New building and road construction also disrupts continuity and reduces available habitat. Surface water quality and groundwater quantity concerns intensify with increasing populations. Fires suppression, a result of current land management practices and proximity to housing, contributes to the spread of invasive species such as red cedar, and the loss of fire-dependent native habitats. Native wildlife species, including the endangered timber rattlesnake, are vulnerable to habitat degradation and human persecution. Busy roads also present dangers and limit the ability of species to disperse.

Energy development and transmission lines In Fillmore County a proposed wind farm project has been permitted and is in pre-development negotiations to resolve issues with various parties. The proposed location of the turbines is just southeast of the Forestville/ Mystery Cave State Park, and does not overlap with our COAs. The perimeter of the area has been pulled back to 1.5 miles from the border of the Forestville COA. However, if this project goes through, energy transmission lines will be put in to connect this energy source to new and existing lines, and the locations of these corridors have not yet been determined. Potential impacts to our COAs might include an increase in mortality to local and migrating bird and bat populations, the removal of natural cover for transmission corridors, and increased establishment of invasive species. At this time there are no other wind development projects being proposed in the area, but this is always subject to change.

Industrial silica sand mining Although numerous surface aggregate mines do exist within Pine Creek Rushford COA, no silica sand producers operate within the boundary at this time. One permitted mine operates just south of the COA in Fillmore County (Figure 28). However, the counties of southeastern Minnesota have significant deposits of industrial silica sand bedrock at or near the surface, and debate over access to this resource is ongoing (Figure 29). Surface aggregate mining is permitted by local units of government and does not usually trigger a state environmental review process. Houston County currently has a moratorium on new permits for aggregate mining that expired in February of 2013; Winona and Fillmore Counties have expired moratoria and are accepting new permits. Potential future impacts of aggregate mining to this site include removal of vegetation and underlying substrates, habitat destruction, warming of trout stream waters, chemical contamination of karst hydrology, and water contamination from high volume dispersals from water processing facilities and dewatering pits.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 121

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Impaired watershed health Within the boundary of Pine Creek Rushford COA, contributions to watershed health are significantly enhanced by the many forested acres that reduce flooding, enhance percolation of groundwater, filter contaminants from waters and soils, and control soil erosion. Soil and water conservation practices employed by the agricultural industry help protect surface waters and mitigate loss of soils. However, this COA lies in the central area of the Root River watershed, and as such is a transition area between flatland farming in the west, where appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are widely used, and steep hill country in the east, where a different set of BMPs address a different topography. Here BMPs are often not fully implemented due to the varied nature of the landscape.

Consequently, dry ravines and intermittent upland streambeds are significant sources of soil erosion during flash flood events. These events carry sediment that impairs the numerous trout streams of the area, and contributes to channel siltation. All tributaries eventually feed into the Root River, where sediment loads affect water quality and turbidity. Farming operations located in the rich flat narrow lands of floodplains are highly erodible during flood events, damaging freshwater habitat and accumulating silt in water channels. Potential nonpoint source pollutants resulting from farm, feedlot and septic operations are sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and salts, all of which can greatly impair the quality of surface waters. Some sections of the Root River within this COA are identified by state and local SWCDs as exceeding TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for turbidity, fecal coliform, and excess mercury accumulation in fish tissues.

In addition, land management practices such as fire suppression and grassland grazing can reduce overall biodiversity, setting in motion a trophic cascade of negative changes throughout the biotic community. These practices encourage the introduction of invasive woody and herbaceous plants that suppress native species, thus destroying the synergetic balance between species that comprises each native plant community. The loss of host plant diversity removes a valuable food source for insect populations, birds, and small mammals. This in turn affects predator-prey relationships and the vigor of wildlife populations. The loss of plant diversity further impacts water and nutrient cycles, reduces soil fertility, and increases soil density. All of these changes reduce the ability of the landscape to sustain important watershed functions such as absorbing rainfall, rejuvenating the soil matrix, and maintaining riparian vegetation.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 122

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 28. MDNR map of counties of southeastern Minnesota where bedrock potentially contains silica sand, with locations of current silica sand mines in southeastern Minnesota.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 123

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 29. Bedrock geology of Pine Creek-Rushford COA showing major surface rock types. Yellow units are where Jordan sandstone of the upper-Cambrian subdivision may appear at the surface with potential sites for aggregate mine locations.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 124

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Phase 4. Landscape Complex Discussion

A landscape complex is an approach that views the contiguous land area from an ecologically functional perspective – as an area influenced by a unifying ecological mechanism. The Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan, as well as this Pine Creek-Rushford COA Plan, are examples of this landscape level approach. Healthy landscape complex functions ensure the continued delivery of ecosystem services such as water replenishment, plant community revitalization, and habitat connections. Each complex reflects an ecological mechanism that operates over an entire area, regardless of the parcelization created by varied land uses. These complexes also help to organize management actions that maintain or enhance sustainable plant communities and rare natural features.

Watershed Complex The inter-connected nature of waters on the landscape makes the watershed complex an important landscape-level ecological mechanism. The drainage area of the Pine Creek-Rushford COA is a complex of minor watersheds within the larger Root River Watershed. Driven by topography, all surface waters drain by a series of waterways that eventually discharge into the central section of the Root River. Land use on all parcels affects the condition of waters along those routes and at their discharge points into progressively larger waterways. Management of shoreline and riparian areas, as well as of all lands that drain openly to surface waters, is important for addressing the cumulative impacts of land use. The large extent of forest cover across this COA is a strong benefit to healthy surface waters. Well-managed forest lands contribute to healthy watersheds. However, steep slopes and concentrations of cleared land in narrow bottomlands present high risk areas. Inputs of eroded soils, chemicals, and excess fertilizers degrade water quality. Removal of riparian buffers that shade waters, provide carbon inputs, and stabilize stream banks contributes to this damage. Stream and river channelization increase the potential for flood damage.

Watershed-level tools have been developed to aid in land management at the watershed scale. The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) established by the USGS divides watersheds, based on surface water drainage basins, into successively smaller units of scale. Minnesota DNR has continued this system by further dividing watersheds into a series of smaller functional hydrology units. These units illustrate the hydrological continuity of Pine Creek-Rushford COA, and provide manageable boundaries for addressing water quality protection (Figure 30).

The Minnesota DNR has developed a watershed assessment tool that helps stakeholders evaluate watershed health. It is based on the five ecological components that maintain vital watershed functions – hydrology, geomorphology, biology, connectivity, and water quality. Assessments for watersheds across the state are available, including the Root River. (See http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed_tool/index.html Your Watershed Health Report.) A review of this online material for the entire watershed gives good direction for evaluations of minor COA watersheds. The major streams of Pine, Rush, Hemingway, Camp

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 125

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Hayward, Big Springs, Diamond, Ferndale and Daley Creeks provide a starting point for an assessment of minor watershed conditions.

Fire Dependent Community Complex Historically fire played an important role in maintaining prairie, savanna, and forest communities. Topographic features of the Blufflands have influenced past fire regimes, where aspect and slope contribute to soil moisture and accumulation of fuels that affect fire frequency and intensity. Fire dependent forests developed on some south to west facing slopes and ridge tops, while bluff prairies and savannas developed on portions of south to west facing upper slopes and ridge tops. Human settlement has altered the natural fire regime, tipping the prairie-forest balance in favor of trees and brush. Bluff and dry sand prairies, as well as oak and sand savannas, are diminishing in size due to woody encroachment by common plants such as trembling aspen, red cedar, and smooth sumac. Dry oak forests, logged for over 100 years, are suffering from lack of regeneration and conversion to less desirable species such as sugar maple. These communities are good candidates for a program of prescribed burning that would return a fire mosaic to the ecosystem. Mapped fire-dependent native plant communities, considered with landscape aspect and slope, can facilitate land management activities (Table 10; Maps 31-33).

Habitat Complex A major concern among conservation biologists is that populations of plants and animals do not become genetically isolated. Overlapping ranges of individual populations help ensure genetic flow among interbreeding populations. The native plants and animals inhabiting the Pine Creek-Rushford COA are part of the larger but fragmented populations that occupy several high-quality habitats within the Root River watershed. The distinct geological characteristics of this area support unique communities of plants and animals that occur nowhere else within the state, making the preservation of a connected habitat complex even more important for maintaining populations. Intact riparian corridors are important pathways for animal movement and migration, and for contiguous plant habitat. Examination of the forest cover and riparian corridors at different levels of scale illustrates habitat connectivity and can facilitate management activities (Maps 34-35). Land management across parcels of diverse ownership is important in order to provide contiguous natural plant communities that transition between forest, prairie and savanna.

Wildlife species depend upon intact habitats that exhibit the structural characteristics and resources necessary for them to complete their life cycles. Many different habitat types, from forests to prairies to wetlands, are needed to support the wide variety of wildlife species that inhabit a landscape. Certain species primarily inhabit particular strata of vegetation throughout their life cycle. Other wildlife species utilize different habitats at different life stages. Yet others may require different habitats at the same time, moving back and forth between habitats on a daily basis. Large areas of unfragmented forests, intact prairies, undisturbed rock cliffs, and wetland habitats are vital for maintaining the native biological diversity and vitality of the region’s wildlife.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 126

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 30. MN DNR minor watershed units (level 07), within the Pine Creek-Rushford COA. Note that the unit boundaries, which are based on landscape hydrology and topography, extend beyond the COA boundary.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 127

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Table 10. Fire return frequency for native plant communities in the Pine Creek-Rushford COA. Information is from Field Gide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2005)

NPC Short-term Long-term Description Community fire interval fire interval

MHs37 Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest light fire - 20 years catastrophic > 1,000

Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood MHs38 light fire - 35 years catastrophic > 1,000 Forest Southern Dry-Mesic Pine- FDs27 mild surface fire - 15 years catastrophic - 135 years Oak Woodland

Southern Dry-Mesic FDs38 mild surface fire - 15 years catastrophic - 150 years Oak-Hickory Woodland

UPs13 Southern Dry Prairie frequent fire < 10 years

UPs14 Southern Dry Savanna frequent fire < 10 years

Southern Dry-Mesic Pine- FDs27 mild surface fire - 15 years catastrophic - 135 years Oak Woodland

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 128

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 31. Fire dependent native plant communities identified by Minnesota Biological Survey.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 129

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 32. Landscape aspect portrayed in maps of increasing scale, used to determine locations of fire-dependent communities. This becomes useful as the map scale becomes larger, allowing for review of specific watershed areas and ownership parcels in their landscape context.

Magnification at medium scale 1:50,000

Large scale 1:12,500

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 130 130

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 33. Landscape slope portrayed in maps of increasing scale, used to determine locations of fire-dependent communities. This becomes useful as the map scale becomes larger, allowing for review of specific watershed areas and ownership parcels in their landscape context.

Medium scale 1:50,000

Large scale 1:11,000

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 131 131

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 34. Habitat complex – contiguous forest cover throughout Pine Creek- Rushford COA. Presented in increasing scale, this landscape view can be used to illustrate connectivity and to examine habitat features of the terrain in more detail.

Scale 1:50,000

Scale 1:15,000

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 132 132

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 35. Riparian habitat complex throughout Pine Creek-Rushford COA. Presented in increasing scale, this landscape view can be used to illustrate riparian corridors and to examine riparian habitat features of the terrain in more detail.

Scale 1:50,000

Scale 1:10,000

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 133 133

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Phase 5: Desired future conditions

Watershed complex

o Protection of karst groundwater features prevents contamination from surface activities and processes.

o The biotic integrity of all COA streams is restored, resulting in healthy aquatic species and de-listing of impaired waters.

o Restoration of native plants along riparian buffers returns a host of ecological services that improve water quality.

o Human activity in riparian management zones (timber harvest, road building, construction) adheres to best management practices, reducing damage to sensitive shorelines and protecting water quality.

o Agricultural practices within the COA have been adjusted to prevent erosion and runoff that affects sediment loading and chemical migration into surface waters.

Fire complex

o Restoration of a natural fire regime to fire-dependent communities. Especially important is the return of fire to dry oak forest types, bluffland prairies, and savanna inclusions.

o Reintroduction of larger scale (300+ acre) fire where appropriate, taking into account the need to protect sensitive wildlife species. Treat contiguous parcels to reduce the landscape fragmentation brought about by individual parcel management.

o Re-establishment of a low intensity surface fire interval where appropriate to reduce encroachment of shrubs and limit invasion of non-native invasive species, maintaining remnant native plant community health.

Habitat complex (wildlife and vegetation)

o Large blocks of habitat exist across ownership lines, providing both the continuity and mosaic necessary to complete life cycles and protect biodiversity.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 134

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

o Contiguous corridors exist linking blocks of high biodiversity habitat, supporting wildlife migration and travel. Special attention is paid to intact riparian corridors.

o Native plant community remnants have expanded and are maintained with ecologically sound principals.

o Endangered plant and animal habitats (algific talus slopes, maderate cliffs, bluff prairies, cliff communities, and forests) are protected from disturbance and degradation.

o Non-native invasive species (garlic mustard, honeysuckle, Japanese barberry, and buckthorn) are monitored and controlled to prevent adverse impact on natural communities.

Phase 6. Identify key stewardship parcels

State-owned properties represented significant blocks of ownership in Pine Creek-Rushford COA, and presented opportunities for targeted stewardship. State-owned lands containing mapped native plant communities were selected as a starting point. Additional management acreage and contiguous land cover were increased by selecting adjoining parcels of private land that met certain criteria. This initial private parcel selection was made using the following criteria, with each parcel satisfying all points (Figure 36):

o Parcel contained an MBS mapped native plant community o Parcel was equal to or greater than 80 acres in size o Parcel property line began within ¼ mile of a state-owned parcel

Some land parcels were selected for stewardship activities, while others were chosen for potential acquisition or conservation easement purchase.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 135

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Figure 36. Identification of parcels for stewardship activities. The selected private parcels meet criteria and are considered for acquisition, easement, or management.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 136

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Phase 7. Identify stewardship activities

After selection of key parcels, a summary of parcel treatments by plant community type (i.e., cropland, prairie, or forest) was prepared. Because of common issues, similar land stewardship activities will take place on similar plant communities. For example, it is important to manage riparian buffers between croplands and waterways; frequent low-intensity burns are necessary for maintaining prairies and savannas; control of invasive buckthorn is needed in forests. This summary served three purposes. First, it helped to estimate the extent of each management activity within the COA and the resources that were needed; second, it illustrated important continuity in management activities that extended across ownership boundaries; third, it allowed each parcel to be seen as part of the larger landscape mosaic. The examination of each selected parcel was continued in order to identify the ecological function that could best be improved upon by a particular stewardship activity. Viewing available air photo layers was informative. However, on-site property visits were important in order to completely evaluate stewardship needs and to address the specifics of management treatments. Resource expenditures (personnel and equipment needs) depended upon the specific tasks chosen for each parcel. Examples of stewardship tasks: o Riparian area restoration – woody or herbaceous planting; removal of invasives o Prairie management – burn treatment; brush cutting o Forest tract treatment – removal of invasive species; seedling planting; develop ecological silviculture prescription; burn treatment

A critical step in stewardship activities was to secure the partnership of landowners through landowner contacts. A valuable strategy helped landowners understand that ecological services such as regulation of water flow, soil and nutrient development, and air purification occur on all lands regardless of ownership. Each parcel of land is an integral part of the larger landscape, and remains coupled to the ecological mechanisms that cross ownership boundaries. Finally, a stewardship prescription was written for each parcel, detailing the management activities and any special considerations. This document served a number of functions: o Provided landowners with specific information concerning activities o Delineated the task to be performed, detail guidelines and special concerns o Provided information for estimations of labor and activity expenses o Served as a record of management activities

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 137

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Phase 8. Perform a stewardship stakeholder analysis

Step 1. Develop a list of all parties potentially interested in participation in land stewardship activities (Table 11). Participants will be needed at different levels of commitment. For example, a SWCD may commit funding and resources; a state forestry office may commit accredited burn crews; a local restoration company may commit to riparian restoration; citizen groups may commit manpower hours to buckthorn removal. Examples of potential stakeholders are: Minnesota Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, local land restoration companies, incorporated towns and cities within the area, Soil and Water Conservation District offices, MN Dept. of Natural Resource offices (Forestry, Fisheries, Wildlife, Parks and Trails), and local recreation groups (hunting, fishing, hiking).

Table 11. Potential Stakeholders in the Pine Creek-Rushford COA.

Organization Contact Address Phone/Email Anne Murphy 2356 University Ave. W (651) 647-9590 The Minnesota Land Trust Conservation Stewardship Saint Paul, MN 55114 [email protected] Director City Hall 101 N. Mill Street City of Rushford Steve Savri, Administrator (507) 864-2444 PO Box 430 Rushford, MN 55971 P.O. Box 961 Meadowlark Restorations Scott Leddy, Owner

Winona, MN 55987 [email protected] Bluff Country Chapter Region 12 Minnesota Deer Hunters Association Ryan Johnson, President Winona, MN 55987 [email protected] Trout Unlimited Jeff Hastings [email protected] 912 Houston St. NW (507) 765-2740 DNR Forestry Preston: Jim Edgar Preston, MN 55965 [email protected] 805 N. Hwy 44/76 (507) 724-5264 Caledonia: Val Green Caledonia, MN 55921 [email protected] Jamie Edwards 3555 9th St. NW Suite 350 (507) 206-2820 DNR Wildlife Nongame Wildlife Specialist Rochester, MN 55901 [email protected] Don Nelson 3555 9th St. NW Suite 350 (507) 206-2858

Wildlife Manager Rochester, MN 55901 [email protected] Lanesboro: Steve Klotz 23785 Grosbeak Road (507) 467-2442 DNR Fisheries Area Supervisor Lanesboro, MN 55949 [email protected] DNR Parks and Trails (Root River Trail) Rochester office: 2300 Silver Creek Rd. NE (507) 206-2847

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 138

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Rochester, MN 55906 Steve Lawler 3555 9th Street NW, Suite 350 (507) 206-2891 Board of Water and Soil Resources Board Conservationist Rochester, MN 55901 [email protected] Brian Green 18 Wood lake Drive SE (507) 206-2610 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Wastewater Rochester, MN 55904 [email protected] Preston Service Center Preston: Robert Joachim (507) 765-3892 Natural Resource Conservation Service 413 Farmers St. NW District Conservationist [email protected]

Preston, MN 55965-1035 Caledonia Service Center Caledonia: Gary Larson 805 N. Hwy 44 (507) 724-5261 District Conservationist Caledonia, MN 55921 [email protected]

Step 2. Investigate stakeholder level of interest in stewardship activities, and the level of resource commitment available. Expect that the stakeholders will have different priorities. For example, SWCDs may be most concerned with TMDLs and sediment loading; plant ecologists may be most committed to rare plant species or high quality fragments of NPC; wildlife ecologists may be most interested in habitat for documented SGCN; foresters could be most committed to maintaining FIM forest stands for harvest or conversion to a new cover type; hunters and fishermen may be most committed to maintaining healthy wildlife populations and habitats. Collaboration between interests and fields of expertise is an important piece of any joint effort.

Step 3. Discuss with each stakeholder the level of commitment they will provide to the project. This will help in resource planning, and provides a type of contractual agreement for assistance.

Phase 9. Project lead and coordination of tasks

Step 1. Engage the commitment of a project lead. This should be someone who is willing to take responsibility for guiding access to expertise, labor, and funding. No single agency will be expected to support all activities, but a single entity should direct the stewardship management. Having a strong vested interest in some aspect of the specific COA may facilitate and expedite resource commitment by both the individual and the individual’s agency. Step 2. Determine partner agencies that will provide assistance.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 139

Section 10: Agency and Organization Recommendations

Phase 10. Project initiation

Step 1. The project lead will assemble a team of partner agencies and volunteers Step 2. The project lead will develop a work and time plan and for stewardship activities such as: o Assign stewardship tasks o Determine funding sources o Estimate stewardship costs o Assemble labor and equipment resources o Make landowner contacts

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 140

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Phase 1. Core Opportunity Area (COA) selection

The selection of the Forestville COA began with a survey of the features of ecological interest that were consistent with the overall goals of the parent stewardship plan. The goals of the Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan were 1) to conserve areas of high biodiversity and distinctive geology while 2) sustainably managing areas that protect watershed health and water quality. In order to identify these features and their distribution, a survey of the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) was conducted and a spatial examination was made of natural resource databases in the ArcGIS platform.

Examples of biodiversity indicators in the Root River watershed included native plant communities as identified by the Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS), rare plant species, and wildlife species of greatest conservation need (SGCN); examples of distinctive geology included karst features such as sink holes, stream sinks, springs and caves. A similar viewing of hydrologic data layers illustrated pathways of surface hydrology existing on the landscape. Identification of the waterways in which the features of biodiversity and geologic interest were nested showed ecological linkages and suggested a shape for the COA that was consistent with ecological function.

Another approach for viewing hydrologic systems was garnered from the USGS HUC watershed unit maps. This system divides the United States into successively smaller hydrologic units (drainage areas) that are nested within each other. Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code. The Root River watershed is identified as a HUC 8 level watershed, and is further divided into minor sub-watersheds. This perspective allowed for identification of source areas that influence water quality – flow areas that contribute waters and materials to larger waterways during runoff events. See http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. The boundaries of these units also helped to establish a COA outline around the selected concentrations of conservation features.

A topographic perspective provided a landscape level platform upon which the previous features exist. Topography is a major contributor to drainage pathways, a driver for the development of ecological communities, and a factor in human land use patterns, especially in the Blufflands. It therefore functioned as a natural spacial delineator that was helpful in visualizing the COA boundary.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 141

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

The previous three layers were incorporated – the areas of biodiversity and geologic concentration, hydrology, and topography. By combining all layers of interest, the physical and functional context of the COA was created in a realistic three-dimensional model. An ideal outline was identified that followed natural boundaries suggested by the watershed units and topographic elevation lines, and incorporated the areas of greatest concentration of natural resource features. Finally, parcel ownership data was added and the COA boundary was delineated by incorporating ownership parcels on the periphery.

Phase 2. Natural Resource Assessment

Ecological Description of the Forestville COA

The Forestville COA is located in the southwest section of the Root River watershed, encompassing roughly 10,713 acres (Figure 37). It is a highly significant natural area for its combination of towering bluffs, cold-water streams and springs, below-ground natural karsts and caves, native plant communities, and rare plant and animal species. When the rare natural features in Forestville COA are combined with the geologic and hydrologic features of the site, the entire area is one of the most significant in southeast Minnesota.

The Forestville COA is part of the Paleozoic Plateau section of southeast Minnesota, an area underlain by ancient bedrock that escaped the most recent glacial advance. The COA includes portions of two subsections: The Blufflands in the steep slopes and river valleys, and the Rochester Plateau in the flatter uplands. These areas are further classified into the landtype associations of Elba Slopes, Chester Ridge, Stewartville Plain, and Alluvial Plain (Figure 38).

Throughout this area, ancient geologic, glacial, and hydrologic processes created a water-carved topography that exemplifies the Paleozoic Plateau. High bluffs, narrow ridges, and flat uplands are cut by steep slopes and incised river valleys. Algific talus slopes and maderate cliffs are maintained by ice-cooled air sustained by the karst topography below. Streams originating from springs and seeps feed into the South Branch of the Root River that meanders eastward to the Mississippi River, creating a drainage network that continues to affect the landscape (Figure 39).

This landscape supports a mix of mature, high quality forests and younger, more disturbed forests covering the steep hillsides, and sand and bluff prairies on flat upland areas. The rivers and streams flow through narrow valley floors that support a combination of mesic hardwood forest, grazed pastures, and croplands. Today this area contributes ecological services to the wider watershed area, including surface and groundwater filtration, air purification, soil renewal, and maintenance of native plant and animal populations (Figure 40).

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 142

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 37. Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area within the Root River watershed.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 143

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 39. Forestville COA Ecological Classification System Subsections and Landtype Associations.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 144

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 39. Hillshade digital elevation model for the Forestville COA, showing the South Branch of the Root River.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 145

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 40. Land cover of Forestville COA, showing the extent of mesic hardwood forests on slopes and floodplains, with smaller agricultural parcels embedded and prescribed by topography.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 146

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Unique Geologic Features

The bedrock at the surface or just below the soil is of Paleozoic origin, developed between 360 and 540 million years ago in ancient seas (Mossler and Hobbs 1995). The youngest exposed bedrock, the Spillville formation from the Middle Devonian period, occurs in the westernmost portion of the site. The oldest exposed bedrock, on the eastern edge, is the Shakopee formation in the Prairie du Chien Group, which is from the Lower Ordovician period. Other bedrock formations exposed in the site include the Maquoketa, Dubuque, Stewartville, Prosser Limestone, Cummingsville, Decorah Shale, Platteville, and Glenwood formations.

The most notable geologic feature in Forestville COA is Mystery Cave, a 14-mile long underground cave complex occurring in the western part of the site. The cave complex, containing several types of calcium carbonate flowstone deposits, has two major entrances separated by a meander of the South Branch Root River. The following information is from Jameson and Alexander (1995). Mystery Cave is a world-class network maze, which consists of an angular network of passages in a maze-like configuration. Maze caves form by roughly simultaneous growth of a large number of fractures, usually vertical joints, to dimensions large enough to admit exploration by humans. Most of Mystery Cave developed in the Dubuque Formation and the underlying Stewartville Formation. The Dubuque consists of interbedded limestone and shale in thin beds, while the Stewartville consists of massively bedded dolomite. A few upper level passages extend above the Dubuque into the Maquoketa Formation (mostly limestone and dolostone). All three units are of Ordovician age. In addition to Mystery Cave, there are at least an additional 16 known caves beneath the surface of Forestville COA (Gerda Nordquist, personal communication).

The geologic formations in portions of this site create conditions for a suite of rare native plant communities that occur only on cold, wet, steep north-facing slopes in the Paleozoic Plateau: Algific Talus Slopes and Maderate Cliffs, collectively called algific systems in this discussion. They occur in specialized settings on steep slopes in deep, narrow, often tightly meandering forested valleys. The cold air and groundwater that create the cold microclimate are produced and maintained by a unique system involving ridgetop sinkholes and subterranean ice caves. These algific systems have cold microclimates throughout the summer, even on the warmest days. On the coldest talus slopes, ice may be present until midsummer beneath moss mats. The coldest and most extensive algific systems occur in limestone formations, especially the Galena group. Further details about these plant communities are included in the Native Plant Communities section below.

Hydrogeology and Surface Hydrology The Southeast Minnesota blufflands are part of the Upper Carbonate Aquifer that extends into parts of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa (http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/). It is an extremely productive aquifer that is characterized by extensive karst features. Karst is a terrain with distinctive landforms and hydrology created from the dissolution of soluble rocks, principally limestone and dolomite. Karst terrain is characterized by springs, caves, sinkholes, and a unique hydrogeology that results in aquifers that are highly productive but extremely vulnerable to contamination (Figure 41).

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 147

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

The Forestville COA exhibits an extraordinary array of karst features associated with the South Branch of the Root River, many of which have been mapped by Dr. Calvin Alexander and his students and associates. Downstream from the cave entrance the flowage of the South Branch Root River sinks through porous rock and runs through subterranean passages, resurfacing at Seven Springs to the east. In dry years the entire flowage of the South Branch Root River can appear to sink underground. The river flows through at least four separate underground basins and resurges in at least five major spring complexes in two separate surface basins (Alexander 1993). The extensive cave system, which underlies the Forestville site and adjacent areas, contains a dynamic system of interconnected underground rivers that reach the surface in the form of numerous springs and seeps, with a great deal of variation related to river flow conditions. Many of the springs are part of three spring complexes in the site, called the Crayfish Springs, Seven Springs, and Saxifrage Springs groups, which include at least 26 separate springs (Alexander 1993).

The cave functions as a subterranean meander cutoff for the river (Jameson and Alexander 1995). Water sinks within the streambed over a several mile reach of the river and reappears at one or more of the spring clusters. At times of high flow, the river exceeds the capacity of the riverbed to accept water and flow is continuous to the springs. At a point of lower discharge, there is a downstream terminal sinkpoint. As discharge falls below this threshold value, the terminal sinkpoint migrates upstream and much of the riverbed is left dry. Infiltration water tends to move vertically downward under the influence of gravity through the soil and loess, except on hillslopes and sides of sinkholes, where some lateral interflow may occur. The water apparently is ponded in the subcutaneous zone and lower loess, forming a perched aquifer. Major recharge events raise the head within this aquifer, providing a driving force sufficient to eject stored water within it and in fractured bedrock beneath it but above the cave. That ejected water moves into the upper levels of Mystery Cave, appearing as seeps, drips, waterfalls, and other kinds of flows.

Approximately 132 miles of aboveground river and streams flow through the site, including the South Branch Root River, two major tributary streams of Forestville Creek and Canfield Creek, and many miles of unnamed perennial and intermittent streams. The three major waterways originate as warm water streams in glaciated areas to the south and west of the site, and then change dramatically as they become cold water streams (Havlik 2000). The South Branch Root River is primarily a warm water stream until it reaches the vicinity of Mystery Cave, but it becomes a cold water stream as it flows east into this site (Havlik 2000). Portions of all of these three streams are designated trout streams. They are valued by anglers as among the most productive trout streams in the Midwest. The cold, stable flows provide excellent spawning habitat and healthy trout populations. These conditions are dependent on the stability of the geologic and hydrologic systems in this site. A number of smaller unnamed streams flow into these larger water bodies. Seven subsurface springsheds feed stream origins. Springshed mapping is ongoing, with only half of the COA completed at this time (Figure 42).

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 148

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 41. Hydrogeology and surface waters of Forestville COA. The black oval is the location of the Forestville Mystery Cave complex.

Cave Complex

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 149

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 42. Rivers, streams and springsheds of Forestville COA. Springsheds are those mapped to date.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 150

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Soils

The complex patterning of soil types is a major factor influencing plant distribution. Plainfield sand, primarily on terraces, and loess top the slopes and ridges. Soils on the mid-slopes are nutrient deficient, shallow, and rocky, often with a sandy component due to weathering of the sandstone bedrock. Mid-slope soils are the most droughty, especially on south and west faces. Lower slopes have a deeper soil that has accumulated as material from above has moved down slope. This colluvial soil is fairly rich in nutrients and retains water fairly well supporting mesic microhabitats even on south and west faces. Sand terraces can be found up the valleys of a number of the larger tributary streams as well. The upper third of many slopes has outcrops of Shakopee limestone which disintegrates into numerous cobblestones, and sometimes forms talus slopes (Figure 43).

Plainfield sand, a well-drained outwash deposit with a high capacity for moisture retention, is infrequently interspersed among other soils derived from the more usual wind-blown silts and loess. Easterly to south-easterly winds pick up fine sand off floodplains and deposit fine particles of eolian sand on the bluff crests and upper ridge slopes. This process enlarges an otherwise limited habitat of barrens sand prairies and oak savannas.

Loess, the principle parent material for soils within the Paleozoic Plateau, is fine silt that caps most bedrock throughout the region. Deposition erosion has accumulated loess as colluvium with other materials within ravines and at the bases of slopes. These areas tend to receive more water and retain it longer through the growing season. Inclusions of mesic forests develop in the moist areas, in stark contrast to the drier plant communities of savannas, barrens prairies, and fire-dependent forests occurring on slopes and terraces.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 151

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 43. Soils of the Forestville COA.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 152

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Native Plant Communities

Native plant community fragments are imbedded among the forests and agricultural fields of Forestville COA. Many of the lower quality forests in this COA have a history of grazing and logging; many of the flat or gently sloping uplands are used for agricultural croplands, pastures, and old fields. However, this site supports high quality native plant community (NPC) fragments that include mesic and fire-dependent hardwood forests, southern cliff and talus slopes, and seepage swamps and meadows.

The Minnesota Biological Survey has identified and mapped native plant community remnants on both public and private lands (Table 12, Map 44). These mapped NPCs total approximately 3,200 acres, or 30% of all acreage within the site. The majority of native plant community remnants are found within Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park, on lands managed by the Minnesota DNR. In addition, a significant portion have been identified in private ownership (Map 9), demonstrating the need for cooperative private lands work in the preservation of native plant communities.

All native plant communities have been assigned a conservation status rank (S-rank) reflecting the risk of elimination of the community from Minnesota. This ranking was based on information compiled by DNR plant ecologists on 1) geographic range or extent; 2) area of range occupied; 3) number of occurrences; 4) number of good occurrences, or percent area of occurrences with good viability and ecological integrity; 5) environmental specificity; 6) long-term trend; 7) short-term trend; 8) scope and severity of major threats; and 9) intrinsic vulnerability. There are five ranks, with the top three indicating rare status: S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 = vulnerable to extirpation. Rare NPC within Forestville COA are unique to the Paleozoic Plateau or exist there on the edge of, or disjunct from, their natural range. Some occur only in the karst landscapes of southeast Minnesota, associated with the cold, wet microclimate maintained by cold air and groundwater emanating from subterranean ice. Others are found on dry, sunny south- to west-facing cliff sites.

Mesic Hardwood Forest System The Mesic Hardwood Forest System is the most prevalent Ecological System in the Forestville site, with seven types comprising 89% of total NPC fragments. Almost all of these are located in the eastern half of the COA, primarily within the Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park. Mesic Hardwood Forests range from Elm – Basswood – Black Ash – (Blue Beech) Forest on the wettest and most nutrient rich end of the spectrum, to Red Oak – White Oak – (Sugar Maple) Forest on the driest and least nutrient rich end.

Elm – Basswood – Black Ash – (Blue Beech) Forest (MHs49b) accounts for 9.4% of total NPC acreage, occupying those few portions of the flatter benches along the South Branch Root River and Forestville Creek that have not been converted to agricultural uses. The best quality area is along Forestville Creek just west of the state park. This is B-ranked old-growth forest; the canopy is dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and red oak (Quercus rubra), with American basswood (Tilia americana) and black ash (Fraxinus nigra) less common. Box elder (Acer negundo) and black willow (Salix nigra) occur in the subcanopy. Shrubs are patchy, and

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 153

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

common ground layer plant species are wood nettle and blunt broom sedge. Other mapped areas of this plant community in the site are smaller in extent. Two rare plant species are found in this habitat, often in sun to partial shade: Great Indian plantain (Arnoglossum reniforme) and glade mallow (Napaea dioica).

Most north to east and west-facing slopes in the site support Red Oak – White Oak – (Sugar Maple) Forest (MHs37b), which at 57.2% of total NPC acreage is by far the largest NPC represented in Forestville COA. Red Oak – Sugar Maple – Basswood – (Bitternut Hickory) Forest (MHs38c) is also present to a much smaller extent. These two plant communities are similar, but the second occurs on relatively more mesic sites and generally has more sugar maple in the canopy. Common canopy species in these two native plant communities include red oak, white oak (Quercus alba), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Other canopy species include white ash (Fraxinus americana), sugar maple, basswood, and bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis). Subcanopies contain ironwood (Ostrya virginiana) and sugar maple. Shrub cover is patchy, and herbaceous layers are diverse and dry- mesic to mesic in character, with species such as lady fern (Athyrium filix-foemina), sharp-lobed hepatica (Anemone hepatica), hog- peanut (Amphicarpea bracteata), elm-leaved goldenrod (Solidago ulmifolia), and heart-leaved aster (Aster cordifolius) common. Few rare plant species occupy these forests, with the exception of Wood’s sedge (Carex woodii) and ginseng (Panax quinquefolius). White Pine – Oak – Sugar Maple Forest (MHs38a) has a similar composition to these two communities, but also includes white pine (Pinus strobus), often as a supercanopy; it generally occurs on thin soil over bedrock on ridge tops and/or upper slopes and occupies only about 62 acres in total.

Rich mesic hardwood forests on shady, moist, middle to lower parts of north-facing slopes are Sugar Maple – Basswood – Red Oak – (Blue Beech) Forest (MHs39b), and make up 9.9% of total NPC acreage. These forests have deeper soils with dark, organic-rich surface horizons. Numerous rare plant species occur in this forest type throughout the Blufflands; in this site, nodding wild onion (Allium cernuum), moschatel (Adoxa moschatellina), and Wood’s sedge have been documented.

White Pine – Sugar Maple – Basswood Forest (Cold Slope) (MHc38a) is unique to the Paleozoic Plateau, and in Minnesota occurs only in the karst landscapes of southeast Minnesota. It accounts for only 0.5% of total NPC acreage in this COA. This forest type is primarily associated with Algific Talus slopes where cold air vents enhance the cool, moist microclimate of the community. It is characterized by the presence of white pine and northern species otherwise absent in southeastern Minnesota. This native plant community occurs in four places in this site, associated with Algific Talus slopes and Maderate Cliffs. Northern-affinity plants in these communities in this site include balsam fir (Abies balsamea), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), Canada yew (Taxus canadensis), high-bush cranberry (Viburnum trilobum), alder-leaved buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia), and small enchanter’s nightshade (Circaea alpina var. alpina). Other common species include sugar maple and basswood in canopy and subcanopy layers, Pagoda dogwood (Cornus alternifolia) and beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta spp. cornuta) in shrub layers, and bulblet fern (Cystopteris

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 154

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

bulbifera), pale touch-me-not (Impatiens pallida), and wild ginger (Asarum canadense) in herbaceous layers. No rare species have been observed in this community in this site.

Cliff/Talus System The Cliff/Talus System is represented by six native plant community types, all small fragments totaling only 5.5% of all NPC in this site. Maderate Cliff (CTs43a) and Algific Talus (CTs46a) are the most ecologically significant Cliff/Talus System plant communities in this site, as they are unique to the Paleozoic Plateau. They are associated with the cold, wet microclimate maintained by cold air and groundwater emanating from subterranean ice. The deep valleys where the communities occur are generally cooler and moister than the surrounding landscape, especially in areas with intact forest canopies; algific talus slopes are rarely affected by direct sunlight. Cool air settles in these valleys in the evening, further enhancing their cool microclimate and minimizing desiccation. Groundwater seepage flow is generally diffuse and concentrated around cold vents. Dense, thick mats of mosses and liverworts form around the vents. These communities support northern plants uncommon in southern Minnesota, including some that are state listed rare plants, as well as and rare Pleistocene land snails. There are 25 Algific Talus slopes in this site, which constitutes 34% of the 73 records in the state. The northern-affinity plant species described under the White Pine – Sugar Maple – Basswood Forest (Cold Slope) above occur on these cliffs and talus slopes in the site; in addition, northern black currant (Ribes hudsonianum), which is a northern swamp species; Iowa golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium iowense), a state-endangered rare plant limited to maderate/algific areas; and moschatel occur here. All five rare Pleistocene snails found on Algific Talus and Maderate Cliffs in Minnesota occur in this site.

Four additional native plant communities in the Cliff/Talus System were mapped by MBS: Southern Open Talus (CTs23), Mesic Limestone-Dolomite Cliff (CTs33b), Southern Mesic Cliff (CTs33), and Southern Dry Cliff (CTs12). CTs12 communities make up the largest percent of cliff communities, covering 81.4 acres or 2.6% of total NPC. They were generally not visited in the field due to the difficulty in accessing them, but were mapped from air photos or by viewing them from a distance.

Fire Dependent Forest/Woodlands System Only one Fire Dependent Forest/Woodland plant community occurs in this site, comprising 4% of total NPC acreage: Oak – Shagbark Hickory Woodland (FDs38a), which is found primarily on south-facing steep slopes. Eleven occurrences were mapped in this site, all 25 acres or less. Interestingly, shagbark hickory does not occur in this site or in the state park (Mark White, personal communication); however there are several species that do occur here that distinguish it from mesic oak forests and that are typical of Oak – Shagbark Hickory Woodlands, including eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis). More degraded examples of this plant community occur on south-facing slopes throughout the site, but many were not mapped by MBS because impacts from past or current grazing and fire suppression had caused enough disturbance that they did not meet minimum mapping criteria. The canopy is dominated by open-grown bur oak, with white oak, northern pin oak, and black cherry common, and with red

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 155

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

oak (Quercus macrocarpa) and basswood becoming common on lower, more mesic slopes. Ironwood dominates the subcanopy, shrub layers are patchy, and ground layers are sparse. No rare species have been found in this plant community in the site.

Upland Prairie System There are five small Bedrock Bluff Prairies (0.3% of total NPC acreage) on southwest-facing steep convex slopes in the site. They were ranked A quality, and described as possessing diverse abundant native forbs but relatively high cover by smooth sumac and other shrubs. One of the prairies was burned by Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park staff in spring 2012. No rare species have been found in this plant community in the site, but a new search following the burn may turn up new rare plant occurrences.

Wet Forest System There are small (two acres or less) occurrences of Black Ash – Sugar Maple – Basswood (Blue Beech) Seepage Swamp (WFs57b), totaling only 0.6% of native plant communities in Forestville COA. They occur in forested seepage areas at the base of steep bluffs in Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park, and outlying areas. There is no detailed information about these plant communities in the site, but in general they are dominated by black ash, often accompanied by sugar maple and basswood, and sometimes also include American elm or yellow birch as codominants. The rare plant smooth-sheathed sedge (Carex laevivaginata) often occurs in these seepage swamp communities.

Wet Meadow/Carr System There are four small occurrences (quality rank of C) of Seepage Meadow/Carr (WMs83a) in the site, all within Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park. This NPC type receives groundwater from upland springs, and has saturated soil and pools. It is dominated by tussock sedge, with several other graminoid species common, including the state-threatened plant species smooth-sheathed sedge (Carex laevivaginata). The few forbs include marsh marigold (Caltha palustris) and obedient plant (Physostegia virginiana). There are likely other areas of Seepage Meadow/Carr associated with springs in the site that have not been visited and that would not be visible on an air photo.

River Shore System Two very small areas (0.1% of total NPC acreage) of Gravel/Cobble Beach (River): Permanent Stream Subtype (RVx32c2) were mapped by MBS along the South Branch Root River in the far west section of this site. No further details were available.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 156

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Table 12. Native Plant Communities (NPC) of Forestville Core Opportunity Area. The total area in NPC is 3,188.4 acres.

Rarity Percent of Native Plant Community NPC Code System Acreage Rank Total NPC Southern Dry Cliff CTs12 SNR Cliff/Talus 81.4 2.6 Southern Open Talus CTs23 S1 Cliff/Talus 4.4 0.1 Southern Mesic Cliff CTs33 SNR Cliff/Talus 4.2 0.1 Mesic Limestone - Dolomite Cliff (Southern) CTs33b S3 Cliff/Talus 29.4 0.9 Maderate Cliff: Limestone Subtype CTs43a S1 Cliff/Talus 17.0 0.5 Algific Talus: Limestone Subtype CTs46a1 S1 Cliff/Talus 39.1 1.2 Total acreage of Cliff/Talus system 175.5 5.5 Oak - Shagbark Hickory Woodland FDs38a S2 Fire Dependent 126.9 4.0 Total acreage of Fire Dependent system 126.9 4.0 Elm - Ash - Basswood Terrace Forest FFs59c S2 Floodplain Forest 9.6 0.3 Total acreage of Floodplain Forest system 9.6 0.3 White Pine - Sugar Maple - Basswood Forest (Cold Slope) MHc38a S1 Mesic Hardwood Forest 14.8 0.5 Red Oak - White Oak - (Sugar Maple) Forest MHs37b S2 Mesic Hardwood Forest 1823.6 57.2 White Pine - Oak - Sugar Maple Forest MHs38a S2 Mesic Hardwood Forest 61.8 1.9 Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - MHs38c S2 Mesic Hardwood Forest 247.7 7.8 (Bitternut Hickory) Forest Sugar Maple - Basswood - Red Oak - (Blue Beech) Forest MHs39b S2 Mesic Hardwood Forest 314.7 9.9 Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest MHs49 S2 Mesic Hardwood Forest 75.6 2.4 Elm - Basswood - Black Ash - (Blue Beech) Forest MHs49b S2S3 Mesic Hardwood Forest 298.8 9.4 Total acreage of Mesic Hardwood Forest system 2837.0 89.0 Gravel/Cobble Beach (River): Permanent Stream Subtype RVx32c2 SNR River Shore 4.1 0.1 Total acreage of River Shore system 4.1 0.1 Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern) UPs13c S3 Upland Prairie 9.0 0.3 Total acreage of Upland Prairie system 9.0 0.3 Black Ash - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Blue Beech) WFs57b S2 Wet Forest 19.1 0.6 Seepage Swamp Total acreage of Wet Forest system 19.1 0.6 Seepage Meadow/Carr WMs83a S3 Wet Meadow/Carr 7.3 0.2 Total acreage of Wet Meadow/Carr system 7.3 0.2

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 157

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 44. Native Plant Community remnants in Forestville COA, identified and mapped by the Minnesota Biological Survey. Acreage and descriptions of NPC codes appear in Table 1 and the following text.

Legend River and Streams Forestville COA NPCs CTs12 CTs23 CTs33 CTs33b CTs43a1 CTs46a1 FDs38a FFs59c MHc38a MHs37b MHs38a MHs38c MHs39b MHs49 MHs49b RVx32c2 UPs13c WFs57b WMs83a

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 158

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 45. Native plant communities of Forestville COA that lie on private parcels outside of state-managed lands, demonstrating the opportunity for private lands cooperative work in native plant community preservation.

Legend Forestville COA Private Ownership Minnesota State Park Native Plant Communities CTs12 CTs23 CTs33 CTs33b CTs43a1 CTs46a1 FDs38a FFs59c MHc38a MHs37b MHs38a MHs38c MHs39b MHs49 MHs49b RVx32c2 UPs13c WFs57b WMs83a

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 159

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Rare Species

Rare species are those currently identified as endangered, threatened, of special concern. A species is considered endangered if the species is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within Minnesota. A species is considered threatened if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range within Minnesota. A species is considered of special concern if, although the species is not endangered or threatened, it is extremely uncommon in Minnesota, or has unique or highly specific habitat requirements and deserves careful monitoring of its status. In addition, there is a category of ‘non’ that refers to a plant or animal species with no legal status, but for which data are being compiled in the NHIS because of potential concern. The plant communities in Forestville COA provide habitat for 25 rare plant species, 19 animal species, two animal assemblages, and 18 native plant community types. This site currently supports populations of four endangered, 10 threatened, 17 special concern, and 12 non-listed species (Table 13, Figure 46).

Rare Plants Fifteen of the 25 rare plant species occur primarily in Mesic Hardwood Forest systems, three in Floodplain Forests, one in Upland Prairie, four on Algific Talus slopes and Maderate Cliffs, and two in Wet Meadow/Carr. Further information about most of these species is included below.

The Iowa golden saxifrage (state endangered) is the most significant rare plant species in the site. This species is found only in Minnesota, Iowa, and Canada. The Midwestern populations of this small saxifrage are found only on Algific Talus Slopes and appear to require the moist, cold air conditions of these habitats. These refugia are small and isolated from other suitable habitat, which explains why the nearest populations are hundreds of kilometers to the north in Manitoba, where true boreal habitats predominate and the species is not uncommon. All Minnesota populations are within a few kilometers of one another in Fillmore and Houston counties. Four of the six records for Iowa golden saxifrage in Minnesota occur here, making protection of this site a priority for ensuring the survival of this species in the state.

There are several other rare plant species that occur on Algific Talus Slopes in the Forestville COA but that may also occur in other habitats. Moschatel (state special concern) is found five times on Algific Talus Slopes in this site. It can also occur in mature Mesic Hardwood Forests, but has not been documented in that habitat in this site. In Minnesota, its distribution includes forests of southeast and far northeast portions of the state. Wolf’s bluegrass (Poa wolfii) (state special concern) occurs on cliffs and talus in forested areas; all recent records of this species in the state are from southeast Minnesota. One population was found in the Forestville site, in crevices and solution gullies on a dry to wet north-facing cliff below an Algific Talus Slope. Smooth rockcress (Arabis laevigata) (nonlisted) occurs uncommonly on cliffs, talus, and rock outcrops in southeast Minnesota.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 160

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Three rare plant species are found in forest habitats on steep slopes in the Forestville COA. Seven populations of nodding wild onion (state threatened) occur in Sugar Maple – Basswood – Red Oak – (Blue Beech) Forest on north to northeast-facing slopes. Nodding wild onion is confined in the state to Mesic Hardwood Forests of southeast Minnesota. Wood’s sedge (state special concern) is found in Mesic Hardwood Forests on north-facing slopes in twelve places in the site, many in Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park. This species is found in rich loamy forests dominated by sugar maple in southeast and central Minnesota. Three south-facing slopes of dry oak forest have small populations of yellow pimpernel (Taenidia integerrima) (nonlisted). This species is confined to the southeast part of the state but has a fairly broad range of habitats, including forests, oak savannas, and prairies, but is most commonly found on woodland edges. In this site it is found in a dry-mesic oak forest with frequent cobblestones.

Three rare plant species occur in wet habitats near the rivers and streams of Forestville COA. Glade mallow (Napaea dioica) (state threatened) occurs in numerous locations along the South Branch Root River in this site. Its typical habitat is alluvial meadow openings in lowland hardwood and floodplain forests and on river banks. Minnesota populations are confined to the southeast part of the state, with most populations occurring along the Root and Zumbro Rivers. In this site, it occurs in Elm – Basswood – Black Ash – (Blue Beech) Forest, on river banks, and in open, disturbed, grassy meadows near the river. Smooth-sheathed sedge (Carex laevivaginata) (state threatened) is another species that is confined in the state to southeast Minnesota. In the southern and eastern portions of its range in the United States, this species grows in swamps and woodland swales, in wet ravines, and along the muddy banks of creeks and rivers. In Minnesota, smooth-sheathed sedge occurs in cold, calcareous seepage flows or seepage-fed wet meadows, usually in narrow valleys along upper reaches of trout streams. In addition to the immediate seepage zone, plants also occur along the groundwater outflow downstream from larger seeps and less commonly along the moist banks of nearby creeks. In this site, smooth-sheathed sedge occurs in a pastured Seepage Meadow/Carr along a small spring-fed stream. Great Indian plantain (Arnoglossum reniforme) (nonlisted) occurs in several places along the South Branch Root River in currently grazed pasture. In Minnesota, it is limited to lowland hardwood forests and grassy alluvial openings along the Root and Iowa Rivers in the southernmost counties of southeastern Minnesota.

Rare Animals There are four rare occurrences of bat concentrations in the Mystery Cave system and a colonial waterbird nesting site - a rookery for great blue heron (Ardea herodias), located in the far southwestern corner of Forestville COA. There are 19 rare animal species in the site that are tracked in the Natural Heritage Information System, including two bat species, three birds species, one rodent species, two snakes species, one turtle species, one frog species, five snail species, one fish species, and three mussel species. Of these, two are endangered, three are threatened, four are special concern, and two are tracked but not on the current endangered species list. The four snail species that are currently listed as endangered or threatened will all be changed to nonlisted because genetic studies need to be done to determine whether or not each taxon is a unique species. Until then, these species should be considered rare and extremely limited in the state. The five snail species are associated with Algific Talus slopes and Maderate Cliffs, the bats hibernate in caves and

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 161

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

utilize forests for their primary habitat, and the fish and mussels are found in rivers and streams. Further information about each species is included below.

Two rare bat species have been documented in this site in the Mystery Cave system: tricolored bat (Pipistrellus subflavus) and northern myotis (Myotis sptentrionalis). These two species hibernate in the extensive Mystery Cave system during the winter, and utilize the caves as well as forested habitats the rest of the year.

The tricolored bat hibernates in the same sites as large populations of other bats, but they tend to occupy the deeper portions of the hibernaculum where temperatures and humidity are higher. In the summer, tricolored bats generally roost singly, often in trees, but some males and non-reproductive females also roost in their winter hibernaculum. Maternity colonies have not yet been located in Minnesota, but elsewhere they have been found in trees, rock crevices, and barns or other buildings. Tricolored bats hibernate from October into April. During this time, they enter a state of torpor in which their body temperature drops to that of the surrounding air temperature. Human activity in caves where bats are hibernating can be detrimental, causing disturbed bats to awaken frequently during the winter. Such disturbance may result in bats emerging from the hibernaculum early, before there is an adequate supply of insects for them to feed on, or they may fail to awaken altogether. Disturbance during hibernation is especially damaging to juveniles, who are already less likely to survive the winter because they have had less time than adults to accumulate fat reserves. They forage mainly over water, and tend to avoid deep woods or open fields. Tricolored bats eat moths, flies, beetles, and ants.

The northern myotis also hibernates in caves. In summer, they are often associated with forested habitats, especially around wetlands. Summer roosts are believed to include separate day and night roosts. Day roosts may be under loose tree bark, in buildings, or behind signs or shutters, and night roosts may include caves, mines and quarry tunnels. Northern myotis enter their winter hibernacula in late August or September. Emergence from the hibernaculum takes place in May. Northern myotis forage for insects over water and forest clearings and under tree canopies, using echolocation to catch prey and to navigate. They may also glean insects off leaves and other surfaces. If possible, hibernacula should be protected from disturbance, as any human activity in a hibernaculum can drastically and negatively affect the status of hibernating bats. Foster and Kurta (1999) found that the number of different trees used for roosting was directly correlated with the duration of tracking. Therefore, retention of diverse native forests is likely important for this species, especially in agricultural areas where forests are often young and widely dispersed. However, forest structure and age class of trees appear to be more important habitat components than the type of tree for the northern myotis, so maintenance of older trees is important when managing for this bat.

The most important habitat features for rare bird species sited in this area are the large relatively unfragmented nature of the forest, the intact lowland hardwood forest in the valleys, and the presence of clear, fast-moving streams. Louisiana waterthrushes (Seiurus motacilla), documented twice in the COA, require clear, flowing streams, steep-sided valleys, and adjacent mature deciduous forest,

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 162

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

including a relatively closed canopy over the streams for breeding habitat. Acadian flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) and Cerulean warblers (Dendroica cerulea) (documented four and five times, respectively) are also associated with mature forests and are often found near streams. Alluvial forests with their varied tree heights and abundant berry-producing shrubs are important areas for bird species that live, hunt, and nest in particular forest strata. Different strata also provide habitats for insects, an important food for breeding populations.

The milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) has been observed rarely (twice) in the vicinity of Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park. This species utilizes open areas near forested areas where they forage nocturnally. The timber rattlesnake ( Crotalus horridus), documented only once, prefers den sites beneath rock ledges on open bluff prairies. The sunny outcrops warm more quickly in early spring causing the snakes to become active sooner than snakes hibernating in shaded dens. After leaving the winter dens in May, adult timber rattlesnakes may wander up to several miles (less for females) during the summer months feeding on rodents in surrounding hardwood forests, especially bottomland forests. Gravid (pregnant) females stay on the bluff near the den during the summer where they use rookery rocks for thermoregulation and a birth place for their young.

Rattlesnakes that attempt to move across extensive openings or near human dwellings are vulnerable to predators and human persecution. Barriers such as busy roads also limit this species’ dispersal ability. The resulting isolated populations face increasing risks of local extirpation. One possibly emerging threat to timber rattlesnakes in Minnesota is the fungal dermatitis Chrysosporium ophiodiicola. Although this threat is not yet fully understood, there is some evidence to suggest that the fungus has far more devastating impacts in genetically isolated and/or inbred populations. Maintaining as much natural gene flow among Minnesota populations by minimizing barriers such as roads, may be crucial in conserving this state threatened species in Minnesota. The fungus was confirmed on Minnesota rattlesnakes in summer 2012 (Smith et. al., In Press).

Western harvest mice (Reithrodontomys megalotis) (also documented only once) have brownish fur with buff sides, a white belly, and an indistinct white stripe on the fur along the spine. The species is nocturnal and an agile climber. Its primary food source is seeds, insects and new plant growth, storing foodstuffs in underground vaults. This mouse breeds from early spring to late autumn, with reduced activity at midsummer. Breeding nests are spherical constructions woven from grass or other plant material, with entrances near the base. Nests are most commonly built on the ground in a protected area such as within a shrub or beside a fallen tree, and occasionally aboveground within a shrub.

The Blanding's turtle has been documented once in this site. The species averages 5.9-9.8 inches in length. Its most diagnostic characteristics are its domed carapace with scattered yellow flecks and its bright yellow chin and throat. This species has delayed maturation, reaching sexual maturity at approximately 12 years of age (Ernst et al. 1994), and females lay only 1 clutch of eggs each year. Nesting occurs in sparsely vegetated uplands with well-drained, sandy soils. In southeastern Minnesota, open marshes and

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 163

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

bottomland wetlands provide summer and winter habitat. Ephemeral wetlands are utilized in spring and early summer, while deeper marshes and backwater pools are utilized in both the summer and winter. Their relatively low mobility, high juvenile mortality rate, and low reproductive potential are also limiting factors for population growth. Loss and degradation of upland and wetland habitats, and mortality on roads are great threats to the species.

Blanchard’s cricket frog (Acris crepitans blanchardi), also documented once, is a subspecies of the northern cricket frog, a member of the tree frog family. Blanchard’s cricket frogs are warty-skinned, brown or grayish, with darker banding on their legs and often a triangular mark between the eyes. They inhabit open, muddy or marshy edges of floodplain ponds and slow-moving streams and rivers. Cricket frogs usually emerge from hibernation in late March to early April and breed from mid-May to mid-July. Populations of this species have declined, possibly due to habitat loss from development and vegetational succession, chemical contaminants, and interspecific competition.

The five rare snail species in the site all occur on Algific Talus Slopes and Maderate Cliffs. In Minnesota, these snails occur nowhere else in the state; they are limited to these highly specific environments in southeast Minnesota. These species were more widespread during the Wisconsin glacial period (>12,000 years ago), but they now survive only as small relict populations with very specific habitat requirements. They are highly susceptible to disturbance from trampling and erosion, and from disturbances to the karst systems that may interrupt the flow of cold air and seepage. They are extremely small; the three species of Vertigo are all around 2 mm in size, while the Novasuccinea range from 11 to 17 mm maximum size. V. hubrichti has been recorded only once in the site, V. hubrichti hubrichti twice, V. hubrichti variablilis four times, and Novasuccinea three times.

One fish species listed in the Natural Heritage Information System, the American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix) (Nonlisted), has been documented six times in Forestville Creek and the South Branch of the Root River within the site. American brook lampreys are found in southern Minnesota. They prefer cool, often spring fed, streams ranging from small to medium size with clear water and bottoms of sand or small-sized gravel. They were previously thought to be rare in the state, but have been found to be relatively common in recent years.

Three rare mussel species have been documented in the South Branch of the Root River within the site, but only empty shells of these species were found in recent surveys. The three species are the ellipse (Venustaconcha ellipsiformis) (state-threatened, recorded twice), creek heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa) (state special concern, recorded twice), and the fluted-shell (Lasmigona costata) (state special concern, recorded once). Live specimens of these species have been found in the South Branch of the Root River further upstream, west of Mystery Cave. Havlik (2000) conducted surveys for mussels in the river in 1998 and speculated about the dearth of live mussels downstream of Mystery Cave as well as the relatively low number of mussel species and individuals in the river as a whole. One potential reason for the lower number of mussels downstream of the cave is that mussels are generally more likely to be

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 164

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

found near or upstream of the midpoint of small river systems than downstream. It is also possible that Mystery Cave might serve as somewhat of a barrier to mussels. Additionally, cumulative agricultural impacts to the river may be responsible for the overall relative paucity of mussels in the river. Mussels are long-lived animals that spend most of their lives buried in the bottom sediments of permanent water bodies and often live in mussel beds, which are multi-species communities. Their reproductive cycles involve production of glochidia that live as parasites on host fish. Clear, clean water and gravel or sand river beds are important to the survival of mussel species.

Table 13. Rare vascular plant and animal species within Forestville COA. E = endangered; T = threatened; SC = Special Concern; N = no status, location records maintained by DNR. Current/

Scientific name Common name Life category Habitat Proposed Status

Adoxa moschatellina Moschatel Vascular plant Cliff/Talus SC/N

Arabis laevigata var. laevigata smooth rockcress Vascular plant Cliff/Talus N/SC

Chrysosplenium iowense Iowa Golden Saxifrage Vascular plant Cliff/Talus E

Poa wolfii Wolf's Bluegrass Vascular plant Cliff/Talus SC

Eryngium yuccifolium Rattlesnake-master Vascular plant Upland Prairie SC

Carex laevivaginata Smooth-sheathed Sedge Vascular plant Wet Meadow/Carr T

Symphyotrichum pilosum White Heath Aster Vascular plant Wet Meadow/Carr N

Arisaema dracontium Green Dragon Vascular plant Floodplain Forest N/SC

Geum laciniatum Rough avens Vascular plant Floodplain Forest N

Napaea dioica Glade Mallow Vascular plant Floodplain Forest T

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 165

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Allium cernuum Nodding Wild Onion Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest T/SC

Arnoglossum reniforme Great Indian-plantain Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest N/T

Carex jamesii James' Sedge Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest T

Carex woodii Wood's Sedge Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest SC/N

Deparia acrostichoides Silvery Spleenwort Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest N/SC

Desmodium cuspidatum var. Big Tick-trefoil Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest SC/T longifolium

Dicentra canadensis Squirrel-corn Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest SC

Dryopteris goldiana Goldie's Fern Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest SC

Gymnocarpium robertianum Limestone Oak Fern Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest N/SC

Jeffersonia diphylla Twinleaf Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest SC

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest SC

Sanicula trifoliata Beaked Snakeroot Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest SC

Silene nivea Snowy Campion Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest T

Symphyotrichum shortii Short's Aster Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest T/SC

Taenidia integerrima Yellow Pimpernel Vascular plant Mesic Hardwood Forest N/SC

Bat Colony Bat Concentration Animal assemblage Cave N

Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area Great Blue Heron Animal assemblage Floodplain Forest N

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 166

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Lasmigona compressa Creek Heelsplitter Invertebrate Animal Aquatic SC

Lasmigona costata Fluted-shell Invertebrate Animal Aquatic SC/T

Minnesota Pleistocene Invertebrate Animal Aquatic T/N Novasuccinea n. sp. minnesota a Ambersnail

Novasuccinea n. sp. minnesota b Iowa Pleistocene Ambersnail Invertebrate Animal Aquatic E/N

Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Ellipse Invertebrate Animal Aquatic T

Vertigo hubrichti Hubricht's Vertigo Invertebrate Animal Algific Ciff/Talus Slope N

Vertigo hubrichti hubrichti Midwest Pleistocene Vertigo Invertebrate Animal Algific Cliff/Talus Slope E/N

Vertigo hubrichti variabilis n. subsp. Variable Pleistocene Vertigo Invertebrate Animal Algific Cliff/Talus Slope T/N

Acris blanchardi Blanchard's Cricket Frog Vertebrate animal Wet Meadow/Floodplain Forest E

Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake Vertebrate animal Rock Bluff T

Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher Vertebrate animal Mesic Hardwood Forest SC

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle Vertebrate animal Wetland/Sandy Upland T

Lampetra appendix American Brook Lamprey Vertebrate animal Aquatic N

Lampropeltis triangulum Milksnake Vertebrate animal Rock Bluff N

Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis Vertebrate animal Cave SC

Parkesia motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush Vertebrate animal Mesic Hardwood Forest SC

Perimyotis subflavus Tricolored Bat Vertebrate animal Cave SC

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 167

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Reithrodontomys megalotis Western Harvest Mouse Vertebrate animal Mesic Hardwood Forest N/SC

Setophaga cerulea Cerulean Warbler Vertebrate animal Mesic Hardwood Forest SC

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 168

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 46. Rare features occurrences and MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance within Forestville COA.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 169

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Phase 3: Identify land ownership and land use

Ownership

Forestville COA encompasses close to 11,000 acres. Private holders are the largest ownership group, accounting for approximately 69.7% lands consist primarily of 2942 acres of Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park, with 229 additional acres managed by the MN DNR Division of Forestry. The State owns an additional 153 acres of acquired cave easements and retains interests in approximately 159 acres of angler easements along designated trout streams. The Nature Conservancy’s Saxifrage Hollow Preserve, part of a large algific talus slope that covers eleven acres, is not open to the public. The variable Pleistocene vertigo has been recorded in the Preserve, as well as Iowa golden saxifrage and extensive yew cover. City and county properties account for three and a half acres of cemetery land and buildings. (Tables 14-15, Figures 47-48, Figure 49).

Land Use

Land use within Forestville COA includes agricultural and recreational activities along with private residential holdings. Farming occurs on approximately 75% of private properties by count and 89% of private land by acreage. Corn and soybeans are the largest agricultural commodities (Table 16, Figure 50). Within Forestville COA there are only 22 acres in the Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) Reserve program. In 2007, approximately 612 acres were enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.

The greatest extent of landscape cover is in deciduous forest. Some logging occurs on private and a small amount of state forest lands. While state-administered forest lands within this COA are mostly non-harvested state park assets, there are 229 acres of the RJD Memorial Hardwood Forest under Division of Forestry management. Division of Forestry timber management strives statewide to maintain a sustainable supply of forest products and services from healthy, diverse and productive ecosystems supported by forest certification (Table 17).

Hunting opportunities on Forestville COA are available to the public in the scattered 229 acres of state forest lands where deer, squirrel, turkey, rabbit, and grouse are the primary game species in forested habitat. Public access is limited however, and hunters must gain permission from local landowners to cross private property. Fishing opportunities are available to the public throughout 63 miles of the South Branch Root River, much of which is included in 60 miles of trout waters that wind throughout this COA. Smallmouth bass, channel catfish, rock bass, sunfish, crappies, and rough fish are found in the active stretches of pooled areas of the river. Brown trout are found in the clear and cold spring-fed Forestville and Canfield Creeks; brown, rainbow and brook trout are stocked in the river. Fishing in public waters is easily accessible in the state park, and by waterway or landowner permission outside of the park, where an additional 10 miles of bankside angler easements exist.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 170

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park is the largest recreation area within Forestville COA, encompassing 3,163 acres. It contains Mystery Cave, the longest cave in the state at 13 miles, and an historic living history museum of the town of Forestville. Also available are a visitor center and picnic shelters, campground with 73 units, 17 miles of hiking trails, 14 miles of horseback trails, 11 miles of cross-country ski and snowshoe trails, and 6 miles of snowmobile trails.

The Preston/Forestville State Trail, currently under construction, runs from the northeast corner of the state park eastward for nine miles to link with the Harmony/Preston State Trail in the town of Preston. When completed, this section will add an important recreational connection to the longer Root River State Trail.

Snowmobile trails traverse the site, maintained by local government and volunteer groups through the Grants-in-Aid program. Three snowmobile groups maintain close to 230 miles of winter recreational trails. Limited off-highway vehicle use is allowed on roads and trails posted as open (Figure 51).

Forestville COA provides many viewing opportunities for enthusiasts of nongame wildlife. This area supports many species of birds that live in the riparian, bluff, prairie and forested habitats. Forested and open areas provide varied habitat for mammals, including deer, gray fox, red fox, coyotes, raccoons, woodchucks, squirrels, weasels, and badgers. River otters and beaver can be found in the river and streams. Lizards such as the skink, racerunner, and many species of snakes, including the timber rattlesnake, inhabit the river banks and outcrops. Nineteen rare animal species have been located within the area, including the state-ranked threatened timber rattlesnake.

Botanists will find that the unique topography of this COA holds diverse habitats for wildflowers, rare plants and native plant communities found only in the Blufflands. This area contains at least 25 rare plant species and 13 rare native plant communities. Because many of these rare species occur at the edge of their ranges, this area preserves important genetic, species, and community diversity.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 171

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Table 14. Estimated land ownership in the Forestville COA.

Parcels Percent of parcel Size Percent of COA Ownership (count) count (acres) acreage

Private 222 64.5 7656 69.7 State 114 33.1 3325 30.2 City and County 7 2.0 3.4 0.03 Charitable 1 0.3 11 0.1

10,992 Total 344 parcels acres

Table 15. Itemization of lands within Forestville COA in which the state holds ownership or interests.

State Interest Interest type Area

State Parks ownership 2942 ac State Forest ownership 229 ac Cave Easements ownership 153.5 ac Fisheries easements angler-only easement 158.6 ac

Total 3483.1 acres

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 172

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 47. Ownership of lands in Forestville COA by number of parcels.

Figure 48. Ownership of lands in Forestville COA by acreage.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 173 173

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 49. Parcel ownership within the Forestville COA reflecting private holdings, state holdings, state-held conservation easements, and city and county property. Boundaries for State properties are mapped to forty acre parcels rather than to true boundaries.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 174 174

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Table 16. Non-crop landcover and highest-acreage croplands within Forestville COA (data from 2010; the percent total does not equal 100 due to decimal rounding).

Percent of Percent of Non-crop Land Cover Cropland total area total area Deciduous Forest 17.20 Corn 14.89 Woody Wetlands 13.46 Soybeans 13.70 Herbaceous Wetlands 9.72 Spring Wheat 3.01 Open Water 6.00 Alfalfa 2.34 Grassland Herbaceous 4.44 Other Hay 1.91 Mixed Forest 2.49 Sugar Beets 0.75 Evergreen Forest 2.48 Sweet Corn 0.18 Shrubland 1.12 Dry Beans 0.17 Barren 0.16 Peas 0.10 Developed/open space 3.70 Oats 0.09 Developed/light intensity 1.08 Fallow/Idle Cropland 0.08 Developed/medium intensity 0.39 Potatoes 0.07 Developed/high intensity 1.16 Remaining Minor Crops 0.34 Percent Total 63.4 Percent Total 37.6

Table 17. DNR forest stand inventory by cover type and acreage. Site index and timber quality vary within each cover type. Data is from inventoried parcels within the boundary of Forestville/ Mystery Cave State Park and a few small DNR Division of Forestry management units of RJD Memorial Hardwood Forest that lie within Forestville COA. This also represents the forest cover types that are present, but have not been inventoried, on private lands throughout Forestville COA. Forest lands outside of the park may have been managed differently, resulting in loss of cover type integrity.

DNR Cooperative Stand Assessment Cover Type Acreage

Oak, bur oak, or northern red oak 276.9 Central hardwoods 71.4 Ash, willow, or lowland hardwood 55.1 Northern hardwood, mixed hardwood, sugar maple-basswood, or sugar maple 49.8 Upland brush 24.9 Lowland grass 14.4 Scotch pine 7.2 Upland grass 5.1 Aspen, bigtooth, cottonwood, offsite aspen, or aspen-spruce-fir 4.3 Walnut 4.3 Cut over 4.2 White pine 2.9 Total Inventoried Acreage 276.9

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 175 175

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 50. Major crops distribution in Forestville COA. RIM data is from 2010; CRP data is from 2007.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 176

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 51. Recreation opportunities in the Forestville COA.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 177

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Environmental Threats in Forestville COA

Development pressures Increasing rural and municipal development within the Forestville COA reflect population trends across the country. Land parcelization continues to fragment landscapes, contributing to a loss of continuity and impairing the capacity of each parcel to deliver ecosystem services. New building and road construction also disrupts continuity and reduces available habitat. Surface water quality and groundwater quantity concerns intensify with increasing populations. Fires suppression, a result of current land management practices and proximity to housing, contributes to the spread of invasive species such as red cedar, and the loss of fire-dependent native habitats. Native wildlife species, including the endangered timber rattlesnake, are vulnerable to habitat degradation and human persecution. Busy roads also present dangers and limit the ability of species to disperse.

Energy development and transmission lines In Fillmore County a proposed wind farm project has been permitted and is in pre-development negotiations to resolve issues with various parties. The proposed location of the turbines is just southeast of the Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park, and does not overlap with our COA. The perimeter of the area has been pulled back to 1.5 miles from the border of the park. However, if this project goes through, energy transmission lines will be put in to connect this energy source to new and existing lines, and the locations of these corridors have not yet been determined. Potential impacts to Forestville COA might include an increase in mortality to local and migrating bird and bat populations, the removal of natural cover for transmission corridors, and increased establishment of invasive species. At this time there are no other wind development projects being proposed in the area, but this is always subject to change.

Industrial silica sand mining Although some surface aggregate mines have operated within Forestville COA, no silica sand producers operate within the boundary at this time. This area has not produced as many aggregate operations as occur farther east in Fillmore county due to the limited locations of sand and gravel deposits and dolomite bedrock. In 2003, only four rock quarries were operating in this area. However, the counties of southeastern Minnesota have significant known and unknown deposits of industrial silica sand bedrock at or near the surface, and debate over access to this resource is ongoing. Surface aggregate mining is permitted by local units of government and does not usually trigger a state environmental review process. Fillmore County had a moratorium on silica sand mining that expired in early 2013 and is now accepting new permits. Potential future impacts of all aggregate mining include removal of vegetation and underlying substrates, habitat destruction, warming of trout stream waters, chemical contamination of karst hydrology, and water contamination from high volume dispersals from water processing facilities and dewatering pits.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 178

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Impaired watershed health Within the boundary of Forestville COA, contributions to watershed health are significantly enhanced by the many forested acres that reduce flooding, enhance percolation of groundwater, filter contaminants from waters and soils, and control soil erosion. Soil and water conservation practices employed by the agricultural industry help protect surface waters and mitigate loss of soils. However, Forestville COA lies in a transition area between flatland farming in the west, where appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are widely used, and steep hill country in the east, where a different set of BMPs address a different topography. Here BMPs are often not fully implemented due to the varied nature of the landscape.

Consequently, dry ravines and intermittent upland streambeds are significant sources of soil erosion during flash flood events. These events carry sediment that impairs the numerous trout streams of the area, and contributes to channel siltation. All tributaries eventually feed into the South Branch Root River, where sediment loads affect water quality and turbidity. Farming operations located in the rich flat narrow lands of floodplains are highly erodible during flood events, damaging freshwater habitat and accumulating silt in water channels. Potential nonpoint source pollutants resulting from farm, feedlot and septic operations are sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and salts, all of which can greatly impair the quality of surface waters. Sections of Forestville Creek, Canfield Creek, and South Branch Root River within this COA are identified by state and local SWCDs as exceeding TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for turbidity, fecal coliform, and nitrates.

In addition, land management practices such as fire suppression and grassland grazing can reduce overall biodiversity, setting in motion a trophic cascade of negative changes throughout the biotic community. These practices encourage the introduction of invasive woody and herbaceous plants that suppress native species, thus destroying the synergetic balance between species that comprises each native plant community. The loss of host plant diversity removes a valuable food source for insect populations, birds, and small mammals. This in turn affects predator-prey relationships and the vigor of wildlife populations. The loss of plant diversity further impacts water and nutrient cycles, reduces soil fertility, and increases soil density. All of these changes reduce the ability of the landscape to sustain important watershed functions such as absorbing rainfall, rejuvenating the soil matrix, and maintaining riparian vegetation.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 179

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Phase 4. Landscape Complex Discussion

Landscape level management is a land conservation model that examines large land areas and the ecosystem functions that sustain them. The Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan, as well as this Forestville COA Plan, are examples of this landscape level approach. Each landscape can be viewed from the perspective of a unifying ecological function, addressed in this discussion as a landscape complex. All landscapes are sustained by the unifying ecological mechanisms that operate over the entire area, regardless of the parcelization created by varied land uses. Some examples of these ecological functions are water replenishment, air purification, nutrient cycling, and succession of plant communities. A healthy landscape complex ensures the continued delivery of these ecosystem services across the wider area. This view of landscape from discrete functional perspectives also helps to organize localized land management activities that address issues crossing ownership boundaries such as soil erosion, restoration of sustainable plant communities, eradication of invasive species, and protection of rare species.

Watershed Complex The inter-connected nature of waters on the landscape makes the watershed complex an important landscape-level ecological mechanism. The drainage area of the Forestville COA is a complex of minor watersheds within the larger Root River Watershed. Driven by topography, all surface waters drain by a series of waterways that eventually discharge into the central section of the Root River. Land use on all parcels affects the condition of waters along those routes and at their discharge points into progressively larger waterways. Management of shoreline and riparian areas, as well as of all lands that drain openly to surface waters, is important for addressing the cumulative impacts of land use. The large extent of forest cover across this COA is a strong benefit to healthy surface waters. Well-managed forest lands contribute to healthy watersheds. However, steep slopes and concentrations of cleared land in narrow bottomlands present high risk areas. Inputs of eroded soils, chemicals, and excess fertilizers degrade water quality. Removal of riparian buffers that shade waters, provide carbon inputs, and stabilize stream banks contributes to this damage. Stream and river channelization increase the potential for flood damage.

Watershed-level tools have been developed to aid in land management at the watershed scale. The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) established by the USGS divides watersheds, based on surface water drainage basins, into successively smaller units of scale. Minnesota DNR has continued this system by further dividing watersheds into a series of smaller functional hydrology units. These units illustrate the hydrological continuity of Forestville COA, and provide manageable boundaries for addressing water quality protection (Figure 52).

The Minnesota DNR has developed a watershed assessment tool that helps stakeholders evaluate watershed health. It is based on the five ecological components that maintain vital watershed functions – hydrology, geomorphology, biology, connectivity, and water quality. Assessments for watersheds across the state are available, including the Root River. (See

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 180

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed_tool/index.html Your Watershed Health Report.) A review of this online material for the entire watershed gives good direction for evaluations of minor COA watersheds. The major streams of Forestville and Canfield Creeks provide a starting point for an assessment of minor watershed conditions.

Fire and Disturbance Complex Natural disturbance plays an important role in the maintenance of plant communities across landscapes. The ecological diversity of species, age structures and competitive relationships of plant and animal communities are dependent upon natural disturbances introduced by fire, wind, flood, disease, and insect outbreaks. Disturbances vary in size from single tree mortality to patch disturbance to stand replacement. Cumulatively these create a mosaic across the broader landscape, maintaining a healthy watershed that continues to deliver ecosystem services.

The topographic features of the Blufflands have influenced past disturbance regimes, where aspect and slope determine exposure to sun and weather. Historically, disturbances that resulted in the partial loss of canopy trees, such as moderate windthrow and light surface fires, were the most common disturbances in the extensive Mesic Hardwood Forests of the Forestville COA. Fire-dependent Oak Woodlands occupying drier slopes were dependent for regeneration on a more frequent fire-return interval. Open prairies on upper slopes and ridgetops were maintained by frequent low-level fires. River Shore and Wet Forest communities were subject to seasonal inundation from snowmelt and heavy rainfall. Cliff/Talus and Wet Meadow/Carr systems persisted in the absence of disturbance, and were very sensitive to hydrologic fluctuations (Table 18). Since human settlement of this area, these natural disturbance patterns have been interrupted and replaced by agriculture, fire suppression, logging, and grazing. The practices that best support human lifestyles can have a cumulatively undesirable impact on the mosaic of plant communities that once covered the land, including loss of plant and animal diversity, an increase in invasive species, a shifting nutrient regime, and impacts to soil and water quality.

Today the largest native plant community fragments remaining in Forestville COA are the Mesic Hardwood Forest type. Large tracts of lower quality hardwood and mixed conifer forests are also present in the state park and in private ownership. There are two fire- dependent native plant community fragments remaining – small inclusions of the Oak-Shagbark Hickory Woodland on south to west facing slopes and the Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern) on small portions of south to west facing upper slopes. Natural fire has been suppressed in this region for many years, resulting in the loss of its associated environmental benefits. In addition, the varied management goals used by the diverse ownership to manage discrete parcels have resulted in a patchy landscape with a loss of ecological continuity.

Many of the mesic forest communities and the fire-dependent fragments in the Forestville COA are good candidates for a program of prescribed burning that would return a mild fire mosaic to the ecosystem, along with the associated ecological benefits. The location

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 181

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

of many native plant communities on private lands illustrates the potential for cooperative private lands work (Figure 53). Mapping fire-dependent and fire-enhanced native plant communities, considered with landscape aspect and slope, can facilitate fire as a land management activity (Figures 54-55).

Habitat Complex A major concern among conservation biologists is that populations of plants and animals tend to become genetically isolated in fragmented landscapes. Overlapping ranges of individual populations help ensure genetic flow among interbreeding populations. The native plants and animals inhabiting the Forestville COA are part of the larger but fragmented populations that occupy several high- quality habitats within the Root River watershed. The distinct geological characteristics of this area support unique communities of plants and animals that occur nowhere else within the state, making the preservation of a connected habitat complex even more important for maintaining populations. Intact riparian corridors are important pathways for animal movement and migration, and for contiguous plant habitat. Examination of the forest cover and riparian corridors at different levels of scale illustrates habitat connectivity and can facilitate management activities. Land management across parcels of diverse ownership is important in order to provide contiguous natural plant communities that transition between forests and open lands (Figures 56-57).

Wildlife species depend upon intact habitats that exhibit the structural characteristics and resources necessary for them to complete their life cycles. Many different habitat types, from forests to prairies to wetlands, are needed to support the wide variety of wildlife species that inhabit a landscape. Certain species primarily inhabit particular strata of vegetation throughout their life cycle. Other wildlife species utilize different habitats at different life stages. Yet others may require different habitats at the same time, moving back and forth between habitats on a daily basis. Large areas of unfragmented forests, intact prairies, undisturbed rock cliffs, and wetland habitats are vital for maintaining the native biological diversity and vitality of the region’s wildlife.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 182

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Table 18. Historic disturbance frequency for susceptible native plant communities in the Forestville COA. Information is from Field Gide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2005).

NPC Stand-regenerating Moderate surface fire and Catastrophic Description Acres Community fire patchy windthrow windthrow

Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie UPs13c 8 -- frequent fire < 10 years -- (Southern) Oak - Shagbark Hickory FDs38a 127 150 years 15 years -- Woodland Red Oak - White Oak - 1823 > 1000 20 years 390 years MHs37b (Sugar Maple) Forest White Pine - Oak - Sugar MHs38a 63 > 1000 35 years 360 years Maple Forest Red Oak - Sugar Maple - MHs38c Basswood - (Bitternut 249 > 1000 35 years 360 years Hickory) Forest Sugar Maple – Basswood – MHs39b Red Oak – (Blue Beech) 315 > 1000 50 years 680 years Forest

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 183

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 52. MN DNR minor watershed units (level 07), within the Forestville COA. Note that the unit boundaries, which are based on landscape hydrology and topography, extend beyond the COA boundary.

MN DNR minor watershed units (levels 08 and 09) on a section of the COA.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 184

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 53. Native plant communities that are susceptible to fire and/or windthrow disturbance, with private ownership parcels. This illustrates the potential for cooperative land management with private landowners by introducing a regime of light surface fires.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 185

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 54. Landscape aspect portrayed in maps of increasing scale, and locations of fire- dependent native plant communities. This becomes useful as the map scale becomes larger, allowing for a closer review of specific watershed areas and NPCs in their landscape context.

Magnification at medium scale 1:15 ,000

Large scale 1:8,000

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 186

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 55. Landscape slope portrayed in maps of increasing scale, and locations of fire- dependent native plant communities. This becomes useful as the map scale becomes larger, allowing for a closer review of specific watershed areas and NPCs in their landscape context.

Medium scale 1:13,000

Large scale 1:8,000

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 187

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 56. Contiguous forest cover in a section of Forestville COA creates a habitat complex. Presented in increasing scale, this view illustrates landscape connectivity and enhances habitat features of the terrain in more detail. Adding parcel boundaries demonstrates that management activities need to span ownership lines.

Scale 1:15,000

Scale 1:8,000

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 188

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 57. Contiguous riparian forest cover in a section of Forestville COA creates a habitat corridor. Presented in increasing scale, this view illustrates riparian landscape connectivity and enhances habitat features of the terrain in more detail. Adding parcel boundaries demonstrates that management activities need to span ownership lines.

Scale 1:15,000

Scale 1:8,000

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 189

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Phase 5: Desired future conditions

Watershed complex

o Protection of karst groundwater features prevents contamination from surface activities and processes.

o The biotic integrity of all COA streams is restored, resulting in healthy aquatic species and de-listing of impaired waters.

o Restoration of native plants along riparian buffers returns a host of ecological services that improve water quality.

o Human activity in riparian management zones (timber harvest, road building, construction) adheres to best management practices, reducing damage to sensitive shorelines and protecting water quality.

o Agricultural practices within the COA have been adjusted to prevent erosion and runoff that affects sediment loading and chemical migration into surface waters.

Fire complex

o Restoration of a natural fire regime to fire-dependent communities. Especially important is the return of fire to the small dry oak forest and bluffland prairie remnants.

o Reintroduction of light surface fires to native plant community mesic hardwood fragments, taking into account the need to protect sensitive wildlife and herbaceous species.

o Re-establishment of a light surface fire interval where appropriate to lower quality forest areas to reduce invasion of non-native invasive species and restore forest community integrity. Where appropriate, contiguous parcels covering a larger scale (300+ acre) are treated with fire to reduce the landscape fragmentation brought about by individual parcel management.

Habitat complex (wildlife and vegetation)

o Large blocks of habitat exist across ownership lines, providing both the continuity and mosaic necessary to complete life cycles and protect biodiversity.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 190

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

o Contiguous corridors exist linking blocks of high biodiversity habitat, supporting wildlife migration and travel. Special attention is paid to intact riparian corridors.

o Native plant community remnants have expanded and are maintained with ecologically sound principals.

o Endangered plant and animal habitats (algific talus slopes, maderate cliffs, bluff prairies, cliff communities, and forests) are protected from disturbance and degradation.

o Non-native invasive species (garlic mustard, honeysuckle, Japanese barberry, and buckthorn) are monitored and controlled to prevent adverse impact to native plant communities.

Phase 6. Identify key stewardship parcels

State-owned properties (Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park and Forestry managed units) comprise close to one third of Forestville COA, and present significant opportunities for targeted stewardship. The State Park staff is already working within the Park and with some landowners to provide assistance with managing vegetation in this COA. They have considerable expertise with prescribed burning and invasive species control. In the identification of key stewardship parcels, state-owned lands containing mapped native plant communities were targeted as a starting point. Additional acreage for management and contiguous land cover were increased by selecting adjoining parcels of private land that met certain conditions. This initial private parcel selection was made using the following criteria, with each parcel satisfying all points (Map 20):

o Parcel contained an MBS mapped native plant community o Parcel was equal to or greater than 80 acres in size o Parcel property line began within ¼ mile of a state-owned parcel

Some land parcels were selected for stewardship activities, while others were chosen for potential acquisition or conservation easement purchase.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 191

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Figure 58. Identification of key parcels for stewardship activities. The selected private parcels contain native plant communities, are greater than 80 acres in size, are located within ¼ mile of state land, and will be considered for management, easement, or acquisition.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 192

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Phase 7. Identify stewardship activities

After selection of key parcels, a summary of parcel treatments by plant community type (i.e., cropland, prairie, or forest) was prepared. Because of common issues, similar land stewardship activities will take place on similar plant communities. For example, it is important to manage riparian buffers between croplands and waterways; frequent low-intensity burns are necessary for maintaining prairies and savannas; control of invasive buckthorn is needed in forests. This summary served three purposes. First, it helped to estimate the extent of each management activity within the COA and the resources that were needed; second, it illustrated important continuity in management activities that extended across ownership boundaries; third, it allowed each parcel to be seen as part of the larger landscape mosaic. The examination of each selected parcel was continued in order to identify the ecological function that could best be improved upon by a particular stewardship activity. Viewing available air photo layers was informative. However, on-site property visits were important in order to completely evaluate stewardship needs and to address the specifics of management treatments. Resource expenditures (personnel and equipment needs) depended upon the specific tasks chosen for each parcel. Examples of stewardship tasks: o Riparian area restoration – woody or herbaceous planting; removal of invasive species o Prairie management – burn treatment; brush cutting o Forest tract treatment – removal of invasive species; seedling planting; develop ecological silviculture prescription; burn treatment

A critical step in stewardship activities was to secure the partnership of landowners through landowner contacts. One approach helped landowners understand that ecological services such as regulation of water flow, soil and nutrient development, and air purification occur on all lands regardless of ownership. Each parcel of land is an integral part of the larger landscape, and remains coupled to the ecological mechanisms that cross ownership boundaries. Finally, a stewardship prescription was written for each parcel, detailing the management activities and any special considerations. This document served a number of functions: o Provided landowners with specific information concerning activities o Delineated the task to be performed, detail guidelines and special concerns o Provided information for estimations of labor and activity expenses o Served as a record of management activities

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 193

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Phase 8. Perform a stewardship stakeholder analysis

Step 1. Develop a list of all parties potentially interested in participation in land stewardship activities (Table 19). Participants will be needed at different levels of commitment. For example, a SWCD may commit funding and resources; a state forestry office may commit accredited burn crews; a local restoration company may commit to riparian restoration; citizen groups may commit manpower hours to buckthorn removal. Examples of potential stakeholders are: Minnesota Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, local land restoration companies, incorporated towns and cities within the area, Soil and Water Conservation District offices, MN Dept. of Natural Resource offices (Forestry, Fisheries, Wildlife, Parks and Trails), and local recreation groups (hunting, fishing, hiking).

Step 2. Investigate stakeholder level of interest in stewardship activities, and the level of resource commitment available. Expect that the stakeholders will have different priorities. For example, SWCDs may be most concerned with TMDLs and sediment loading; plant ecologists may be most committed to rare plant species or high quality fragments of NPC; wildlife ecologists may be most interested in habitat for documented SGCN; foresters could be most committed to maintaining FIM forest stands for harvest or conversion to a new cover type; hunters and fishermen may be most committed to maintaining healthy wildlife populations and habitats. Collaboration between interests and fields of expertise is an important piece of any joint effort.

Step 3. Discuss with each stakeholder the level of commitment they will provide to the project. This will help in resource planning, and provides a type of contractual agreement for assistance.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 194

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Table 19. Potential Stakeholders in the Forestville COA.

Organization Contact Address Phone/Email Anne Murphy 2356 University Ave. W (651) 647-9590 The Minnesota Land Trust Conservation Stewardship Saint Paul, MN 55114 [email protected] Director 900 Washington St Donna Rasmussen (507) 765-3878 Fillmore SWCD NW Box A, Administrator [email protected] Preston, MN 55965 Bluff Country Chapter Region 12 Minnesota Deer Hunters Association Ryan Johnson, President Winona, MN 55987 [email protected] Trout Unlimited Jeff Hastings [email protected] 912 Houston St. NW (507) 765-2740 DNR Forestry Preston: Jim Edgar Preston, MN 55965 [email protected] Jamie Edwards 3555 9th St. NW Suite 350 (507) 206-2820 DNR Eco Waters/Non game Nongame Wildlife Specialist Rochester, MN 55901 [email protected] Don Nelson 3555 9th St. NW Suite 350 (507) 206-2858 DNR Wildlife Wildlife Manager Rochester, MN 55901 [email protected] Lanesboro: Steve Klotz 23785 Grosbeak Road (507) 467-2442 DNR Fisheries Area Supervisor Lanesboro, MN 55949 [email protected] 3555 9th Street NW, Suite 350 DNR Parks and Trails (Root River Trail) Rochester office: (507) 206-2847 Rochester, MN 55901 DNR Parks and Trails (Forestville/Mystery Mark White 21071 County 12 (507) 352-5111 Cave State Park) Park Manager Preston, MN 55965 [email protected] 8485 Rose Street (507) 332-0526 DNR Parks and Trails (Forestville/Mystery Shawn Fritcher Rice Lake State Park [email protected] Cave State Park) Resource Specialist Owatonna, MN 55060 Melissa Driscoll 500 Lafayette Road (651) 259-5098 DNR SNA Protection Specialist St. Paul, MN 55155-4040 [email protected] Jeff Green 3555 9th Street NW, Suite 350 (507) 206-2853 DNR Eco Waters Groundwater Hydrologist Rochester, MN 55901 [email protected] Steve Lawler 3555 9th Street NW, Suite 350 (507) 206-2891 Board of Water and Soil Resources Board Conservationist Rochester, MN 55901 [email protected] Brian Green 18 Wood lake Drive SE (507) 206-2610 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Southeast Watershed Wastewater Rochester, MN 55904 [email protected] Preston Service Center Preston: (507) 765-3892 Natural Resource Conservation Service 413 Farmers St. NW District Conservationist

Preston, MN 55965-1035

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 195

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Phase 9. Project lead and coordination of tasks

Step 1. Engage the commitment of a project lead. This should be someone who is willing to take responsibility for guiding access to expertise, labor, and funding. No single agency will be expected to support all activities, but a single entity should direct the stewardship management. Having a strong vested interest in some aspect of the specific COA may facilitate and expedite resource commitment by both the individual and the individual’s agency. Step 2. Determine partner agencies that will provide assistance.

Phase 10. Project initiation

Step 1. The project lead will assemble a team of partner agencies and volunteers Step 2. The project lead will develop a work and time plan and for stewardship activities such as: o Assign stewardship tasks o Determine funding sources o Estimate stewardship costs o Assemble labor and equipment resources o Make landowner contacts

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 196

Section 11: Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 197

Appendix A

Appendix A: Minnesota Biological Survey Site Biodiversity Significance Ranking Criteria, developed by the Minnesota DNR, 2009

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 198

Appendix A

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 199

Appendix B

Appendix B: Native Plant Communities Mapped by the Minnesota Biological Survey in the Root River Watershed

*Conservation NPC Type Code NPC Class and Type Names Mapped Acres Status Rank CTs12 Southern Dry Cliff 1262

CTs23 Southern Open Talus 16

CTs23b Mesic Limestone - Dolomite Talus (Southern) 3 4 CTs33 Southern Mesic Cliff 156

CTs33a Mesic Sandstone Cliff (Southern) 2 11 CTs33b Mesic Limestone - Dolomite Cliff (Southern) 3 265 CTs43a1 Maderate Cliff: Limestone Subtype 1 50 CTs43a2 Maderate Cliff: Dolomite Subtype 1 1 CTs46a1 Algific Talus: Limestone Subtype 1 63 CTs46a2 Algific Talus: Dolomite Subtype 1 28 CTs53 Southern Wet Cliff 13

FDs27a Jack Pine - Oak Woodland (Sand) 1 4 FDs27b White Pine - Oak Woodland (Sand) 1 65 FDs27c Black Oak - White Oak Woodland (Sand) 2 330 FDs38a Oak - Shagbark Hickory Woodland 3 3383 FFs59a Silver Maple - Green Ash - Cottonwood Terrace Forest 3 146 FFs59b Swamp White Oak Terrace Forest 1 514 FFs59c Elm - Ash - Basswood Terrace Forest 2 1121 MHc38a White Pine - Sugar Maple - Basswood Forest (Cold Slope) 1 28 MHs37 Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest 1770

MHs37a Red Oak - White Oak Forest 3 734 MHs37b Red Oak - White Oak - (Sugar Maple) Forest 4 15815 MHs38 Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest 79

MHs38a White Pine - Oak - Sugar Maple Forest 3 600 MHs38c Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory) Forest 3 2383

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 200

Appendix B

MHs39 Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest 178

MHs39a Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory) Forest 2 275 MHs39b Sugar Maple - Basswood - Red Oak - (Blue Beech) Forest 3 3760 MHs49 Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest 772

MHs49b Elm - Basswood - Black Ash - (Blue Beech) Forest 2 1105 MRn83b Cattail Marsh (Northern) 2 25 MRn93 Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh 3

OPp93c Calcareous Fen (Southeastern) 1 13 OW Other Water Body 2

RVx32b Sand Beach/Sandbar (River) 3 35 RVx32c2 Gravel/Cobble Beach (River): Permanent Stream Subtype 3 17 UPs13a Dry Barrens Prairie (Southern) S1S2 77 UPs13b Dry Sand - Gravel Prairie (Southern) 2 4 UPs13c Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern) 3 2470 UPs14 Southern Dry Savanna 25

UPs14a1 Dry Barrens Oak Savanna (Southern): Jack Pine Subtype 1 4 UPs14a2 Dry Barrens Oak Savanna (Southern): Oak Subtype S1S2 449 UPs23a Mesic Prairie (Southern) 2 174 UPs24a Mesic Oak Savanna (Southern) 1 6 WFs57b Black Ash - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Blue Beech) Seepage Swamp 1 26 WMn82b Sedge Meadow 280

WMs83a Seepage Meadow/Carr 3 231 WMs83a1 Seepage Meadow/Carr Tussock: Sedge Subtype 3 399 WPs54b Wet Prairie (Southern) 2 8

*Conservation Status Ranks reflect the risk of elimination of the community from Minnesota. There are 5 ranks: S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 = vulnerable to extirpation; S4 = apparently secure, uncommon but not rare; 5 = secure, common, widespread, and abundant

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 201

Appendix C

Appendix C: State Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plant and Animal Species in the Root River Watershed (as of April 2013)

Plants State Protection State Global Last Common Name Scientific Name Category Status Rank Rank Observed Habitat mesic hardwood American Beakgrain Diarrhena obovata Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4G5 8/8/1999 forest mesic hardwood American Ginseng Panax quinquefolius Vascular Plant special concern S3 G3G4 6/20/1915 forest mesic hardwood Beaked Snakeroot Sanicula trifoliata Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 8/9/1919 forest Desmodium fire dependent Big Tick-trefoil cuspidatum var. Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5T5? 8/18/1982 forest, mesic longifolium hardwood forest wet forest, sedge Bog Bluegrass Poa paludigena Vascular Plant threatened S2 G3 6/26/1989 meadow Phegopteris mesic hardwood Broad Beech-fern Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 8/26/1979 hexagonoptera forest mesic hardwood Butternut Juglans cinerea Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 7/9/2010 forest, floodplain forest Paronychia Canadian Forked Chickweed Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 7/21/1993 dry prairie canadensis mesic hardwood Carey's Sedge Carex careyana Vascular Plant threatened S2 G4G5 5/31/1995 forest Asclepias Clasping Milkweed Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 6/19/1964 dry prairie amplexicaulis dry prairie, cliffs Cliff Goldenrod Solidago sciaphila Vascular Plant special concern S3 G3G4 8/14/1927 (dry) Clinton's Bulrush Scirpus clintonii Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 7/19/2005 sedge meadow Clustered Broomrape Orobanche fasciculata Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 6/8/1994 dry prairie Creeping Juniper Juniperus horizontalis Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 3/31/1961 dry prairie fire dependent Asplenium Ebony Spleenwort Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 8/26/1979 forest, mesic platyneuron hardwood forest

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 202

Appendix C

Floerkea False Mermaid Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 6/3/1996 wet forest proserpinacoides floodplain forest, Glade Mallow Napaea dioica Vascular Plant threatened S2 G4 7/15/1994 alluvial meadows Goat's-rue Tephrosia virginiana Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 6/24/1920 dry prairie Golden-seal Hydrastis canadensis Vascular Plant endangered S1 G4 5/19/1995 mesic prairie mesic hardwood Goldie's Fern Dryopteris goldiana Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 6/17/1942 forest Hill's Thistle Cirsium hillii Vascular Plant special concern S3 G3 6/14/1994 dry prairie Chrysosplenium Iowa Golden Saxifrage Vascular Plant endangered S1 G3? 1982-06 algific talus slopes iowense mesic hardwood James' Sedge Carex jamesii Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 5/23/1984 forest Sedum integrifolium Leedy's Roseroot Vascular Plant endangered S1 G5T1 6/4/2005 Wet cliffs ssp. leedyi mesic hardwood Marginal Shield-fern Dryopteris marginalis Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 8/9/2004 forest mesic hardwood Moschatel Adoxa moschatellina Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 5/16/1994 forest Narrow-leaved Milkweed Asclepias stenophylla Vascular Plant endangered S1 G4G5 7/6/2005 dry prairie Narrow-leaved Pinweed Lechea tenuifolia Vascular Plant endangered S1 G5 7/5/1994 dry prairie Diplazium mesic hardwood Narrow-leaved Spleenwort Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 6/17/1942 pycnocarpon forest mesic hardwood Nodding Wild Onion Allium cernuum Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 8/16/1995 forest One-flowered Broomrape Orobanche uniflora Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 6/13/1967 dry prairie mesic hardwood Ovate-leaved Skullcap Scutellaria ovata Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 7/7/1921 forest, floodplain forest Baptisia bracteata var. Plains Wild Indigo Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4G5T4T5 8/19/1963 dry prairie leucophaea Lespedeza Prairie Bush Clover Vascular Plant threatened S2 G3 8/13/1993 dry prairie leptostachya Prairie-parsley Polytaenia nuttallii Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 6/22/1915 prairie Purple Cliff-brake Pellaea atropurpurea Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 6/6/1994 cliffs Purple Rocket Iodanthus pinnatifidus Vascular Plant endangered S1 G5 6/29/1937 floodplain forest Rattlesnake-master Eryngium yuccifolium Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 7/17/1980 mesic prairie

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 203

Appendix C

Reniform Sullivantia Sullivantia sullivantii Vascular Plant threatened S2 G4 6/13/1994 Wet cliffs Rhombic-petaled Evening Oenothera Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4G5 7/21/1993 dry prairie Primrose rhombipetala Minuartia Rock Sandwort Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 5/30/1922 Rock outcrop dawsonensis Rock Whitlow-grass Draba arabisans Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 5/22/1977 algific talus slopes Rough-seeded Fameflower Talinum rugospermum Vascular Plant endangered S1 G3G4 7/21/1993 dry prairie Sea-beach Needlegrass Aristida tuberculosa Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 10/1/1962 dry prairie mesic hardwood Short's Aster Aster shortii Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 10/2/1947 forest mesic hardwood Silverleaf Grape Vitis aestivalis Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 9/28/1993 forest Slender-leaved Scurf Pea Psoralidium tenuiflora Vascular Plant endangered S1 G5 6/22/1915 dry prairie Cypripedium Small White Lady's-slipper Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 6/8/1983 sedge meadow candidum Smooth-sheathed Sedge Carex laevivaginata Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 5/23/1996 wet forest mesic hardwood Snow Trillium Trillium nivale Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 4/20/1985 forest sedge meadow, Snowy Campion Silene nivea Vascular Plant threatened S2 G4? 1903-07 floodplain forest mesic hardwood Spreading Sedge Carex laxiculmis Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 7/5/1979 forest mesic hardwood Squirrel-corn Dicentra canadensis Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 5/17/1994 forest Desmodium fire dependent Stemless Tick-trefoil Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 8/13/1993 nudiflorum forest Sterile Sedge Carex sterilis Vascular Plant threatened S2 G4 6/17/1986 calcareous fen Sullivant's Milkweed Asclepias sullivantii Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 7/27/1983 dry prairie Sweet-smelling Indian-plantain Cacalia suaveolens Vascular Plant endangered S1 G4 7/21/1994 sedge meadow Three-flowered Melicgrass Melica nitens Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 6/25/1902 dry prairie mesic hardwood Three-leaved Coneflower Rudbeckia triloba Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 8/23/1988 forest, floodplain forest Arnoglossum Tuberous Indian-plantain Vascular Plant threatened S2 G4G5 10/3/2005 prairie plantagineum mesic hardwood Twinleaf Jeffersonia diphylla Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 7/20/1968 forest

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 204

Appendix C

Eupatorium fire dependent Upland Boneset Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5 8/16/1993 sessilifolium forest, dry prairie Valeriana edulis var. sedge meadow, dry Valerian Vascular Plant threatened S2 G5T3 5/18/1940 ciliata prairie White Wild Indigo Baptisia alba Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 8/16/2008 mesic prairie Parthenium Wild Quinine Vascular Plant endangered S1 G5 11/17/1979 mesic prairie integrifolium fire dependent Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana Vascular Plant special concern S3 G5 8/31/1993 forest algific talus slopes, Wolf's Bluegrass Poa wolfii Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 8/1/1994 maderate cliffs mesic hardwood Wood's Sedge Carex woodii Vascular Plant special concern S3 G4 5/11/1977 forest

Animals State Protection State Global Last Common Name Scientific Name Category Status Rank Rank Observed Habitat mesic hardwood Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Vertebrate Animal special concern S3B G5 6/22/1993 forest Haliaeetus Bald Eagle Vertebrate Animal special concern S3B,S3N G5 4/7/2005 floodplain forest leucocephalus Emydoidea marsh, dry prairie, Blanding's Turtle Vertebrate Animal threatened S2 G4 6/7/1995 blandingii aquatic Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G3G4 7/30/2002 aquatic Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Vertebrate Animal special concern S3B G4 6/22/1996 floodplain forest dry prairie, rock Common Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G5 8/19/1993 outcrop Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Vertebrate Animal special concern S3B G5 6/19/1993 marsh Crystal Darter Ammocrypta asprella Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G3 11/29/1998 aquatic Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G5 6/12/1993 dry prairie Gravel Chub Erimystax x-punctata Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G4 10/3/1984 aquatic Ammodramus Henslow's Sparrow Vertebrate Animal endangered S1B G4 5/29/2005 mesic prairie henslowii mesic hardwood Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Vertebrate Animal special concern S3B G5 6/2/1989 forest Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Vertebrate Animal threatened S2B G4 5/8/2003 dry prairie Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla Vertebrate Animal special concern S3B G5 6/11/1996 forest, streams North American Racer Coluber constrictor Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G5 6/12/2003 forest, prairie Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 205

Appendix C

Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans Vertebrate Animal endangered S1 G5 9/3/1939 aquatic, wetlands Myotis Northern Myotis Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G4 2/24/2001 caves, forest septentrionalis Ozark Minnow Notropis nubilus Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G5 4/30/1985 aquatic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Vertebrate Animal threatened S2B G4 1958 cliffs Aphredoderus Pirate Perch Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G5 8/6/1945 aquatic sayanus Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G5 8/9/1982 prairie Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Vertebrate Animal special concern S3B,SNRN G5 7/15/1994 forest Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Vertebrate Animal threatened S2 G4 9/26/2007 forest, prairie Tricolored Bat Pipistrellus subflavus Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G5 2/24/2001 caves, forest Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor Vertebrate Animal threatened S2B G5 6/18/2002 sedge meadow Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta Vertebrate Animal threatened S2 G4 2000 forest mesic hardwood Woodland Vole Microtus pinetorum Vertebrate Animal special concern S3 G5 5/3/1993 forest, floodplain forest Phidippus Invertebrate no A Jumping Spider special concern S3 8/21/1982 dry prairie apacheanus Animal rank Lasmigona Invertebrate 1998-06- Creek Heelsplitter special concern S3 G5 aquatic compressa Animal PRE Alasmidonta Invertebrate Elktoe threatened S2 G4 10/8/2003 aquatic marginata Animal Venustaconcha Invertebrate Ellipse threatened S2 G4 9/25/2002 aquatic ellipsiformis Animal Invertebrate Fluted-shell Lasmigona costata special concern S3 G5 10/8/2003 aquatic Animal Invertebrate 2002-08- Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria special concern S3 G4 aquatic Animal PRE Novasuccinea n. sp. Invertebrate Iowa Pleistocene Ambersnail endangered S1 G2 1985 algific talus slopes minnesota b Animal Hesperia leonardus Invertebrate Leonard's Skipper special concern S3 G4T4 8/21/1982 dry prairie leonardus Animal Vertigo hubrichti Invertebrate Midwest Pleistocene Vertigo endangered S1 G3T3 5/24/1982 algific talus slopes hubrichti Animal Minnesota Pleistocene Novasuccinea n. sp. Invertebrate threatened S2 G2 1985 algific talus slopes Ambersnail minnesota a Animal Actinonaias Invertebrate Mucket threatened S2 G5 2002-Pre aquatic ligamentina Animal Round Pigtoe Pleurobema Invertebrate threatened S2 G4G5 2002-Pre aquatic Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 206

Appendix C

coccineum Animal Cicindela macra Invertebrate Sandy Stream Tiger Beetle special concern S3 G5T5 8/2/1997 dry prairie macra Animal Invertebrate 2002-08- Spike Elliptio dilatata special concern S3 G5 aquatic Animal PRE Cicindela splendida Invertebrate Splendid Tiger Beetle special concern S3 G5T5 4/27/1968 dry prairie cyanocephalata Animal Vertigo hubrichti Invertebrate Variable Pleistocene Vertigo threatened S2 G3T3 5/24/1982 algific talus slopes variabilis n. subsp. Animal

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 207

Appendix D

Appendix D: Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Blufflands Subsection (Minnesota DNR 2006)

AM = amphibians,

BI = birds, FI = fish,

IN = insects, MA = Upland

cliff/talus -

-

mammals, MO = forest

mollusks, RE = -

reptiles, SP = spiders

dunes

Non

-

-

Lowland Conifer Lowland Deciduous Upland Conifer Upland Deciduous Upland Deciduous Lowland

Headwater toHeadwater large LargeVery Deep Shallow ------

- - - - State Fed rassland

Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Legal Legal # subsections of # occurrences of # habitats of Cropland Developed Forest Forest Forest Forest (Aspen) Forest (Hardwood) G Lake Lake Prairie River River Shoreline Shrub Shrub/woodland Wetland Metaphidippus SP A Jumping Spider SPC NL 4 3 1 x arizonensis Phidippus SP A Jumping Spider SPC NL 1 0 1 x apacheanus SP Sassacus papenhoei A Jumping Spider SPC NL 1 1 2 x x

Cicindela patruela IN A Tiger Beetle SPC NL 5 3 4 x x x x patruela Cicindela splendida IN A Tiger Beetle SPC NL 1 1 4 x x x x cyanocephalata Empidonax BI Acadian Flycatcher SPC NL 6 55 2 x x virescens Recurvirostra BI American Avocet NL NL 16 0 2 x x americana MA Taxidea taxus American Badger NL NL 24 0 7 x x x x x x x

American Brook FI Lampetra appendix NL NL 7 91 1 x Lamprey FI Anguilla rostrata American Eel NL NL 3 35 2 x x

American Golden- BI Pluvialis dominica NL NL 24 0 2 x x plover American BI Scolopax minor NL NL 22 1 4 x x x x Woodcock IN Atrytone arogos Arogos Skipper SPC NL 9 0 1 x

Haliaeetus BI Bald Eagle SPC THR 21 129 7 x x x x x x x leucocephalus BI Vireo bellii Bell's Vireo NL NL 6 9 2 x x

FI Ictiobus niger Black Buffalo SPC NL 3 13 1 x

Moxostoma FI Black Redhorse NL NL 3 7 1 x duquesnei MO Ligumia recta Black Sandshell SPC NL 25 54 2 x x

BI Chlidonias niger Black Tern NL NL 18 5 2 x x

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 208

Appendix D

Coccyzus BI Black-billed Cuckoo NL NL 25 20 6 x x x x x x erythropthalmus Emydoidea RE Blanding's Turtle THR NL 13 26 7 x x x x x x x blandingii Papaipema Blazing Star Stem IN NL NL 9 0 1 x beeriana Borer FI Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker SPC NL 3 136 2 x x

Blue-winged BI Vermivora pinus NL NL 6 64 4 x x x x Warbler Etheostoma FI Bluntnose Darter NL NL 2 2 1 x chlorosoma Dolichonyx BI Bobolink NL NL 25 7 6 x x x x x x oryzivorus BI Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher NL NL 25 14 2 x x

Tryngites Buff-breasted BI NL NL 23 0 4 x x x x subruficollis Sandpiper MO Ellipsaria lineolata Butterfly THR NL 4 22 1 x

BI Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler SPC NL 10 81 2 x x

BI Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen SPC NL 7 12 2 x x

Common AM Necturus maculosus NL NL 14 0 3 x x x Mudpuppy Common BI Chordeiles minor NL NL 25 0 2 x x Nighthawk Common Snapping RE Chelydra serpentina SPC NL 25 0 5 x x x x x Turtle Lasmigona MO Creek Heelsplitter SPC NL 24 6 1 x compressa Ammocrypta FI Crystal Darter SPC NL 3 53 2 x x asprella BI Spiza americana Dickcissel NL NL 11 1 4 x x x x

BI Calidris alpina Dunlin NL NL 24 0 2 x x

RE Elaphe vulpina Eastern Fox Snake NL NL 9 44 6 x x x x x x

Heterodon Eastern Hognose RE NL NL 6 12 7 x x x x x x x platirhinos Snake RE Sistrurus catenatus Eastern Massasauga END CAND 1 0 7 x x x x x x x

BI Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark NL NL 20 22 2 x x

Pipistrellus MA Eastern Pipistrelle SPC NL 7 13 7 x x x x x x x subflavus RE Coluber constrictor Eastern Racer SPC NL 5 19 3 x x x

RE Elaphe obsoleta Eastern Rat Snake SPC NL 1 2 3 x x x

Eastern Spotted MA Spilogale putorius THR NL 19 0 8 x x x x x x x x Skunk Eastern Wood- BI Contopus virens NL NL 25 278 5 x x x x x pewee MO Fusconaia ebena Ebonyshell END NL 4 27 1 x

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 209

Appendix D

MO Elliptio crassidens Elephant-ear END NL 3 9 1 x

Alasmidonta MO Elktoe THR NL 7 17 2 x x marginata Venustaconcha MO Ellipse THR NL 8 18 1 x ellipsiformis Truncilla MO Fawnsfoot NL NL 5 21 1 x donaciformis BI Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow NL NL 13 104 3 x x x

RE Eumeces fasciatus Five-lined Skink SPC NL 3 6 5 x x x x x

MO Lasmigona costata Fluted-shell SPC NL 12 20 2 x x

Spermophilus Franklin's Ground MA NL NL 23 0 5 x x x x x franklinii Squirrel RE Pituophis catenifer Gopher Snake SPC NL 7 28 4 x x x x

Ammodramus Grasshopper BI NL NL 14 6 3 x x x savannarum Sparrow Erimystax x- FI Gravel Chub SPC NL 3 4 1 x punctata BI Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs NL NL 25 0 2 x x

IN Gomphus crassus Handsome Clubtail NL NL 1 0 1 x

Ammodramus BI Henslow's Sparrow END NL 7 4 3 x x x henslowii MO Obovaria olivaria Hickorynut SPC NL 5 74 1 x

MO Lampsilis higginsii Higgins Eye END END 4 1 x

BI Limosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit NL NL 18 0 1 x

Lycaeides melissa IN Karner Blue END END 3 1 3 x x x samuelis BI Rallus elegans King Rail END NL 2 0 3 x x x

Acipenser FI Lake Sturgeon SPC NL 14 45 2 x x fulvescens BI Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern NL NL 16 3 3 x x x

BI Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher NL NL 25 24 4 x x x x

MA Cryptotis parva Least Shrew SPC NL 2 0 4 x x x x

Hesperia leonardus IN Leonard's Skipper SPC NL 7 2 2 x x leonardus BI Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike THR NL 10 5 3 x x x

Louisiana BI Seiurus motacilla SPC NL 5 61 2 x x Waterthrush Cistothorus BI Marsh Wren NL NL 20 17 4 x x x x palustris Lampropeltis RE Milk Snake NL NL 6 61 4 x x x x triangulum Hybognathus Mississippi Silvery FI NL NL 2 65 2 x x nuchalis Minnow MO Quadrula Monkeyface THR NL 10 33 2 x x

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 210

Appendix D

metanevra Actinonaias MO Mucket mussel THR NL 11 9 2 x x ligamentina Actinonaias MO Mucket mussel THR NL 11 13 2 x x ligamentina Etheostoma FI Mud Darter NL NL 3 375 1 x asprigene Northern Cricket AM Acris crepitans END NL 6 1 3 x x x Frog BI Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier NL NL 25 1 6 x x x x x x

Myotis MA Northern Myotis SPC NL 5 10 9 x x x x x x x x x septentrionalis Stelgidopteryx Northern Rough- BI NL NL 25 42 3 x x x serripennis winged Swallow IN Hesperia ottoe Ottoe Skipper THR NL 6 3 1 x

Seiurus BI Ovenbird NL NL 22 157 4 x x x x aurocapillus FI Notropis nubilus Ozark Minnow SPC NL 3 0 1 x

FI Polyodon spathula Paddlefish THR NL 3 91 1 x

FI Notropis amnis Pallid Shiner SPC NL 2 19 1 x

BI Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon THR NL 6 6 10 x x x x x x x x x x

IN Erynnis persius Persius Duskywing END NL 5 1 1 x

IN Schinia indiana Phlox Moth SPC NL 5 0 2 x x

AM Rana palustris Pickerel Frog NL NL 2 57 4 x x x x

Aphredoderus FI Pirate Perch SPC NL 2 43 1 x sayanus Tritogonia MO Pistolgrip THR NL 5 12 1 x verrucosa IN Oarisma powesheik Powesheik Skipper SPC NL 6 1 x

Microtus MA Prairie Vole SPC NL 12 0 4 x x x x ochrogaster Prothonotary BI Protonotaria citrea NL NL 6 18 2 x x Warbler Opsopoeodus FI Pugnose Minnow NL NL 2 825 1 x emiliae Cyclonaias MO Purple Wartyback THR NL 5 4 1 x tuberculata Red Tailed Prairie IN Aflexia rubranura SPC NL 10 0 1 x Leafhopper Lythrurus FI Redfin Shiner NL NL 3 0 1 x umbratilis Melanerpes Red-headed BI NL NL 22 19 8 x x x x x x x x erythrocephalus Woodpecker Red-shouldered BI Buteo lineatus SPC NL 12 36 3 x x x Hawk Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 211

Appendix D

Clinostomus FI Redside Dace NL NL 3 10 1 x elongatus IN Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary SPC NL 11 0 1 x

Moxostoma FI River Redhorse NL NL 3 468 1 x carinatum Arcidens MO Rock Pocketbook END NL 3 17 1 x confragosus Pheucticus Rose-breasted BI NL NL 25 154 5 x x x x x ludovicianus Grosbeak Pleurobema MO Round Pigtoe THR NL 6 44 2 x x coccineum BI Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone NL NL 20 0 2 x x

Simpsonaias MO Salamander Mussel THR NL 4 0 1 x ambigua Cistothorus BI Sedge Wren NL NL 25 15 5 x x x x x platensis Semipalmated BI Calidris pusilla NL NL 25 0 2 x x Sandpiper Plethobasus MO Sheepnose END CAND 4 3 1 x cyphyus Limnodromus Short-billed BI NL NL 22 0 1 x griseus Dowitcher Scaphirhynchus Shovelnose FI NL NL 4 90 2 x x platorynchus Sturgeon Cnemidophorus Six-lined RE NL NL 3 0 4 x x x x sexlineatus Racerunner Gomphus IN Skillet Clubtail NL NL 2 0 1 x ventricosus FI Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack Herring SPC NL 4 18 2 x x

Liochlorophis Smooth Green RE NL NL 15 0 3 x x x vernalis Snake RE Apalone mutica Smooth Softshell SPC NL 3 37 2 x x

Epioblasma MO Snuffbox THR NL 3 0 1 x triquetra Macrhybopsis FI speckled chub NL NL 5 73 2 x x aestivalis Cumberlandia MO Spectaclecase THR CAND 3 0 1 x monodonta MO Elliptio dilatata Spike SPC NL 10 30 2 x x

Phenacobius Suckermouth FI NL NL 4 7 1 x mirabilis Minnow Melospiza BI Swamp Sparrow NL NL 25 18 3 x x x georgiana RE Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake THR NL 3 134 5 x x x x x

Euphyes bimacula Two-spotted IN NL NL 7 0 1 x illinois Skipper

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 212

Appendix D

Bartramia BI Upland Sandpiper NL NL 19 0 6 x x x x x x longicauda Vertigo hubrichti Variable Pleistocene MO THR NL 1 0 1 x variabilis n. subsp. Vertigo BI Catharus fuscescens Veery NL NL 22 25 5 x x x x x

BI Rallus limicola Virginia Rail NL NL 23 4 3 x x x

FI Lepomis gulosus Warmouth NL NL 2 88 1 x

MO Quadrula nodulata Wartyback END NL 5 18 1 x

Megalonaias MO Washboard THR NL 3 22 1 x nervosa Reithrodontomys Western Harvest MA NL NL 10 2 4 x x x x megalotis Mouse Western Hognose RE Heterodon nasicus SPC NL 9 0 2 x x Snake Western Sand FI Ammocrypta clara NL NL 3 250 2 x x Darter BI Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel NL NL 13 0 1 x

Caprimulgus BI Whip-poor-will NL NL 21 1 2 x x vociferus White-rumped BI Calidris fuscicollis NL NL 20 0 2 x x Sandpiper BI Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher NL NL 13 27 3 x x x

MO Quadrula fragosa Winged Mapleleaf END END 4 1 1 x

Troglodytes BI Winter Wren NL NL 18 8 3 x x x troglodytes Hylocichla BI Wood Thrush NL NL 20 70 3 x x x mustelina RE Clemmys insculpta Wood Turtle THR NL 11 15 1 x

MA Microtus pinetorum Woodland Vole SPC NL 1 2 2 x x

Morone FI Yellow Bass SPC NL 1 35 1 x mississippiensis MO Lampsilis teres Yellow Sandshell END NL 3 14 1 x

Yellow-bellied BI Sphyrapicus varius NL NL 23 66 4 x x x x Sapsucker

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 213

Appendix E

Appendix E: Regional Plans’ Common Themes within the Root River Watershed

MFRC Southeast Landscape Plan Goals 1. Increase forest land 2. Decrease fragmentation from development Strategies 1. Use prescribed fire to support regeneration of oak 2. Prepare and implement Stewardship Plans 3. Encourage reforestation next to existing forested areas 4. Remove exotic/invasive species (e.g. buckthorn, garlic mustard, gypsy moth) 5. Identify areas of exotic/invasive species 6. Research long-term economic benefits of contiguous forest land 7. Research developing a program where landowners enroll their forest land into and receive yearly payments based on the revenue from the management of all the forest land in the program 8. Provide unique outreach activities (field days, workshops) to various groups including: private woodlot owners, farmland owners near forested areas, marginal cropland owners, seasonal residents, elected officials and stakeholder groups 9. Promote long-term benefits of forest management 10. Provide silvicultural examples for management of mesic, oak savanna and hardwood sites 11. Provide workshops and field days (for example woodland advisor classes) for loggers and private landowners on stewardship planning and landscape goals 12. Show successful forest management (use passive demonstration areas and active field days) 13. Activate Forest Legacy areas in the region 14. Establish continuity between plans. 15. Develop methods to support long-term commitments from: political structures, funding sources, planning groups 16. Utilize private/public partnerships to assist in implementation of these strategies. One on one relationship building is important

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) Blufflands/Rochester Plateau Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan (SFRMP) and extension Challenges 1. Biodiversity 2. Management of minor cover types 3. Old growth forest management 4. Private forest land management Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 214

Appendix E

1. Enhance quality and health of minor forest types through silvicultural treatments 2. Promote white pine cover types along riparian corridors and where it exists as a component of other cover types 3. Increase area identified for Extended Rotation Forestry (ERF) Goals 1. Enhance quality and health of minor forest types through silvicultural treatments 2. Promote white pine cover types along riparian corridors and where it exists as a component of other cover types 3. Increase area identified for Extended Rotation Forestry (ERF) Strategies 1. Introduce large scale and repetitive prescribed burns to regenerate oak 2. Identify locations of exotics to reduce potential spread 3. Use prescribed fire and/or logging to provide mineral soil exposure to promote regeneration of white pine 4. Develop and maintain transfer of knowledge between local managers and natural resource professionals 5. Identify stands adjacent to public lands during stand selection process to determine opportunities for cooperative management 6. Consider silvicultural practices that enhance endangered and threatened species and/or native plant communities 7. Incorporate protection of rare species into forest management objectives 8. Use voluntary site-level forest management guidelines

MN DNR High Biodiversity Site Management Plan- “Partridge Creek” Challenges 1. Protection of endangered, threatened and special concern plant species 2. Protection of stream management zones where sensitive species occur (see challenge 1) 3. Protection of old growth stands Goals 1. Further land protection 2. Enhance game and non- game wildlife habitat 3. Mesic oak forest is designated as an S2 natural community, it should be actively managed to ensure its perpetuation 4. In dry oak forests encourage regeneration of the oak community through controlled burning and carefully planned logging to open up the community 5. Ensure the regeneration and perpetuation of the white pine-hardwood forest 6. Perpetuation of the fairly open oak canopy in oak woodlands through carefully implemented prescribed burns and/or through timber harvesting 7. Maintain the maple basswood native plant community while retaining a diverse shrub layer and maintaining or increasing the diversity of native plants in the herbaceous layer

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 215

Appendix E

8. Maintain a quality lowland hardwood community while protecting the groundwater seepage springs and herbaceous ground cover Strategies 1. Portions of stands that support unique or rare resources (such as a rare species or a rich spring ephemeral flora) may be delineated for no harvest 2. Prescribed fire on oak site pre and post-sale to encourage natural regeneration 3. Land acquisition as it becomes available, especially near old growth and streams

MN DNR High Biodiversity Site Management Plan- “Pine-Hemingway Creek” Challenges 1. Protection of endangered, threatened and special concern plant species 2. Protection of old growth stands Goals 1. Manage and enhance native plant communities using processes that mimic the disturbances processes that helped to establish them 2. Maintain the maple basswood native plant community while retaining a diverse shrub layer and maintaining or increasing the diversity of native plants in the herbaceous layer 3. Maintain a quality lowland hardwood community while protecting the groundwater seepage springs and herbaceous ground cover 4. Eliminating non-native species 5. Mesic oak forest is designated as an S2 natural community, it should be actively managed to ensure its perpetuation 6. In dry oak forests encourage regeneration of the oak community through controlled burning and carefully planned logging to open up the community that occur in them 7. Further land protection Strategies 1. Encourage natural regeneration by utilizing site appropriate clear cut or shelterwood harvests 2. Prescribed fire on oak site pre and post-sale to encourage natural regeneration 3. No activities are planned for the life of this plan for algific talus slopes 4. Land acquisition as it becomes available, especially near old growth and streams

MN DNR State Wildlife Action Plan Challenges 1. There has been significant loss and degradation of SGCN habitat including oak savanna/brush prairies, native prairies, non- forested wetlands, high quality grasslands, cliffs and bluffs, stream habitats Strategies 1. Manage invasive species Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 216

Appendix E

2. Use prescribed fire and other practices to maintain savannas and prairies 3. Encourage oak savanna and prairie restoration efforts 4. Maintain high-quality grasslands 5. Manage habitats adjacent to wetlands to enhance SGCN values 6. Encourage when appropriate transformation of plowed fields into pasture/grasslands 7. Support the protection of cliff and bluff habitats from damaging development 8. Enhance cliff and bluff habitats to support SGCN 9. Maintain good water quality, hydrology, geomorphology, and connectivity in priority stream reaches 10. Maintain and enhance riparian areas along priority stream reaches 11. Develop partner and project specific performance measures

MN DNR Land Asset Management Plan for Rochester Forestry Area Goals 1. Achieve the optimum pattern of forest land ownership for the management of forest resources designed to best serve the needs of Minnesota’s citizens 2. Obtain conservation easements from willing participants on non-state lands adjacent to state forestland, where development pressure exists that would create land use conflicts, hindering the ability to effectively manage the forest resource Strategies 1. Acquire Private lands in the following priorities that provide for state forest land: 1) Consolidation a. Land that is landlocked inside a large contiguous block of Division of Forestry administered land b. Land that reduces state /private boundaries 2) Resource protection. a. Productive forest land b. Land that could be developed causing land-use conflicts with adjacent Division of Forestry administered land 2. Control noxious weeds on state lands

Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Implementation Plan Challenges 1. Widespread risk of ground water contamination due to karst geology 2. Aquatic and terrestrial habitat degradation Strategies 1. Riparian buffers: funding, installation and maintenance. 2. Streamlining the process to producers to install buffers through NRCS (EQIP and other programs).

MNDNR Division of Fisheries Strategic Plan for Coldwater Resources Management in Southeast Minnesota 2004-2015 Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 217

Appendix E

Challenges 1. To maintain, enhance, or restore the health of Minnesota ecosystems so that they can continue to serve environmental, social, and economic purposes. Goals 1. Improve our ability to protect, improve, and restore riparian and in-stream habitat so that fish populations are healthy. 2. Support and use a watershed approach for trout management so that all coldwater resources are protected and improved, and basin-wide impacts to coldwater streams can be addressed. Strategies 1. Work to increase the amount of critical habitat that is protected through fee title acquisition or other land protection options (e.g., conservation easements, land trusts). 2. Improve the ability of southeast Fisheries staff to assist landowners in decisions and activities concerning riparian management and fish populations. 3. Integrate coldwater resource management by establishing partnerships and sharing information with other natural resource and land management agencies having administrative responsibility in southeast Minnesota including Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), County Water Planning, Department of Agriculture, local units of government, and non-governmental organizations. 4. Coordinate and develop partnerships with other interested parties listed in Strategy 1 to develop a central stream and watershed database/Geographical Information System (GIS) that incorporates water quality, land use, and biological information. 5. Continue to provide staff time to maintain a Fisheries presence in watershed issues, track State and Federal Farm Bill Legislation, provide private lands management assistance, and advocate for management at the watershed scale to improve trout populations and aquatic habitat.

Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota 2001 Basin Plan Scoping Document Goals 1. Promote appropriate timber harvesting techniques 2. Develop Forest Stewardship Plans 3. Expand forested areas 4. Improve current timber stands 5. Protect existing natural vegetation 6. Increase stream miles of riparian buffers at least 50 feet wide bordering protected waters Strategies 7. Determine watershed prioritization criteria for protection or restoration 8. Permanently protect and preserve highly vulnerable areas 9. Keep stream and spring flows and groundwater levels within historic ranges

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 218

Appendix F

Appendix F: List of Agencies and Organizations (with abbreviations) Important to Conservation in the Root River Watershed

Agencies and Conservation Organizations

BALMM Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota BWSR Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MDA Minnesota Department of Agriculture MNDHA Minnesota Deer Hunters Association MFRC Minnesota Forest Resource Council MLT Minnesota Land Trust MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NTC National Trout Center NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service SE MN WRB South East Minnesota Water Resources Board SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District TNC The Nature Conservancy T U Trout Unlimited U of M University of Minnesota RC&D Three Rivers Resource Conservation and Development

Root River Landscape Stewardship Project Steering Team

Title Organization Regional Plant Ecologist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Southeast MN Conservation Coordinator The Nature Conservancy PFM Coordinator DNR Forestry Landscape Program Manager MFRC Administrator Fillmore SWCD

Roles Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 219

Appendix F

 Initial organizers of the landscape stewardship project.  Develop the overall process and major steps for the project- planning, coordination, implementation and monitoring/evaluation.  Oversee the formation of the Planning/ Coordination Committee and the Implementation Partners Team.  Administer initial project funding and contracting through the planning process and the first phase of coordination/implementation.  Select, hire and direct the project consultants. Ensures all work products are completed and payments to contractors are made.  Other tasks as needed to ensure the successful development of the overall project

Root River Landscape Stewardship Planning/Coordination Committee

Title Organization Nongame Specialist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Regional Plant Ecologist DNR Ecological & Water Resources PFM Forester DNR Forestry Forestry Specialist DNR Forestry ECS Ecologist DNR Forestry Forester DNR Forestry Administrator Fillmore SWCD Consulting Forester Independent Contractor Conservation Director, Southern Region Minnesota Land Trust Watershed Coordinator MPCA District Conservationist NRCS Southeast MN Conservation Coordinator The Nature Conservancy Extension Educator, SE MN University of Minnesota

Roles  Meets on a regular basis over a 6-9 month period to develop the landscape stewardship plan.  Provides primary input into the content in the landscape stewardship plan and related documents prepared by the project consultant.  Provides a final recommended landscape stewardship plan document to the MFRC Southeast Landscape Committee who then submits a final recommended plan to the State Forester for final approval.  Provide primary source of input for guiding the coordination of activities and events needed to support the successful implementation of the landscape stewardship plan.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 220

Appendix F

 Oversee the implementation of the project monitoring process and reporting to the MFRC Southeast Landscape Committee, DNR Forestry and other divisions as appropriate, and project partners.

Root River Watershed Workgroup

Title Organization Area Hydrologist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Area Hydrologist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Regional Plant Ecologist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Groundwater Specialist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Prairie Bank Acquisition Specialist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Clean Water Legacy Specialist DNR Ecological & Water Resources Wildlife Habitat Specialist (Winona) DNR Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Technician (Lanesboro) DNR Fish and Wildlife Area Fisheries Supervisor DNR Fish and Wildlife Assistant Area Fisheries Supervisor DNR Fish and Wildlife Statewide Legacy Program Coordinator DNR Forestry Area Forester (Rochester Area) DNR Forestry Senior Forestry Specialist (Preston) DNR Forestry Regional Strategic Program Manager DNR Parks and Trails Manager, Forestville/Mystery Cave S.P. DNR Parks and Trails Regional Planner DNR Regional Operations Southern Region Conservation Director Minnesota Land Trust Watershed Coordinator MPCA Director of Habitat Protection The Nature Conservancy Southeast MN Conservation Coordinator The Nature Conservancy Extension Educator, SE MN US Fish and Wildlife Service

Roles  Be informed about the goals and strategies outlined in the landscape stewardship plan.  Be informed about the major coordination and funding development efforts being developed by the Planning/Coordination Committee needed to successfully implement the landscape stewardship plan. Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 221

Appendix F

 Advocate and support the successful implementation of the landscape stewardship plan.  Share information with the Planning/ Coordination Committee that can help improve the effective delivery of conservation series to private landowners in the Root River Watershed.  Encourage home organizations to integrate goals and strategies from the landscape stewardship plan into their plans and policies.  Support the monitoring and evaluation process for the overall project.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 222

Appendix G

Appendix G: Conservation Related Tax Programs for Private Landowners

Class 2c Managed Forest Land

This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this fact sheet supersedes, alters, or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax law, administrative rules, court decisions, or revenue notices. www.taxes.state.mn.us

What is it? This property classification, enacted in 2008, provides a reduced class rate of 0.65 percent to forested property that is subject to a current forest management (stewardship) plan and that meets other requirements. There is no minimum term of enrollment; property will receive the reduced class rate as long as it is enrolled and continues to meet the necessary requirements. Property owners that own forested land and who actively abide by the prescriptions set forth in a qualifying forest management plan may receive a reduced class rate of 0.65 percent on any eligible land.

What are the qualifications? To qualify for class 2c managed forest land, your property must meet the following conditions:  Have at least 20 eligible acres of forested land (but can only enroll up to 1,920 acres statewide);  Have a forest management plan that is registered with the DNR and less than 10 years old;  Cannot be used agriculturally; and  Cannot include property that is enrolled in the Sustainable Forest Incentive Act (SFIA) program, CRP, CREP, RIM, or the Green Acres program. The 20 acre requirement is based on the aggregate of all eligible land on contiguous parcels, not a parcel-by-parcel basis. Class 2c managed forest land property does not receive homestead benefits.

Do structures qualify for the classification? The presence of a minor, ancillary structure does not disqualify a property from receiving class 2c. These structures are defined as sheds or other primitive structures that add minimal value and are not designed for residential use, the aggregate size of which is less than 300 square feet. The presence of water, sewer, electrical or gas service/hook ups, kitchen facilities, and separate bedroom areas, would all be signs that a structure is not a minor, ancillary structure. Structures that do not qualify as a minor, ancillary structure require a minimum of 10 acres to be split off and assigned to the structure and classified according to the use of the structure.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 223

Appendix G

How do I apply? Applications are available in your county assessor’s office. Application must be made by May 1 to qualify for class 2c for the current assessment year, taxes payable the following year. For example, in order to qualify for class 2c for the 2010 assessment, you must apply by May 1, 2010. The classification will then affect your taxes payable in 2011. You must have a valid forest management plan at the time of application. You cannot apply for the classification pending a forest management plan.

Can I sell the property once it is enrolled? Yes. However, if ownership changes after a property is classified as 2c, the new owners will need to complete a new 2c application in order to continue to receive the classification, as well as provide an updated forest management plan that is registered in the new owner’s name.

What information do I need to supply? You must supply the assessor with a completed application, copies of property tax statements for all parcels being enrolled, and copy of a registered forest management plan that encompasses all the land that is being enrolled.

How do I get a Forest Management Plan? Contact your local Department of Natural Resources (DNR) office or forester to learn about developing a forest management plan. Plan writers must be approved by the DNR.

What if I have questions? For more information, or for answers to specific questions, contact your county assessor’s office.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 224

Appendix G

Sustainable Forest Incentive Act

This fact sheet is intended to help you become more familiar with Minnesota tax laws and your rights and responsibilities under the laws. Nothing in this fact sheet supersedes, alters or otherwise changes any provisions of the tax law, administrative rules, court decisions or revenue notices. www.taxes.state.mn.us

What is the Program? Legislation passed in 2001—the Sustainable Forest Incentive Act (SFIA)—allows annual payments to be made to enrolled owners of forested land as an incentive to practice long-term sustainable forest management.

Who is Eligible? To enroll in the sustainable forest incentive program, you must meet all of the following requirements: • You own 20 or more contiguous acres of land in Minnesota, of which at least 50 percent is forested. An owner may include private individuals, corporations and partnerships—both residents and nonresidents of Minnesota. However, there can only be one claimant per parcel of land. If the land is owned by multiple people, the owners must decide who will receive the incentive payment. • There are no delinquent property taxes owed on the land prior to enrolling, and the taxes remain current while enrolled in the program. • The land must have an active forest management plan in place that was prepared by an approved plan writer within the past 10 years. The plan writer must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). All management activities prescribed in the plan must meet the recommended timber harvesting and forest management guidelines created by the Minnesota Forest Resources Council. A complete copy of the plan must be made available to the Department of Revenue upon request. • You must certify that the land is not enrolled in Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM), Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Green Acres, Ag Preserves, 2c Managed Timberland or the Rural Preserve Program. • The enrolled acres of land cannot be used for residential or agricultural purposes. • You agree to be enrolled in the program for a minimum of eight years. Please note: your land does not drop out at the end of eight years. To withdraw, a request must be made to the Commissioner of Revenue. The withdrawal process takes four years. If you meet all of the qualifications for enrollment, you must then record a covenant with the county recorder’s office (or registrar for registered land) in which your land is located pledging not to develop the land. Covenant forms are available at the county recorder’s office. Allow the county recorder two to three months to process your request.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 225

Appendix G

When to File Once a covenant has been recorded with the county, complete Form TH1, Sustainable Forest Incentive Act Enrollment Application, to enroll in the program. Applications are available at www.revenue.state.mn.us and at many county and DNR forestry offices. When you file, be sure all the requested information on your application is provided—including each parcel’s covenant number and number of eligible acres. If all the information is not provided, your application will be delayed or denied. Your application and all required attachments must be postmarked no later than September 30 to receive an incentive payment the following year. Applications mailed after September 30 and incomplete applications will be denied for that year. The department will send an approval or a denial letter within 90 days after receiving your application.

Signatures Both you and your approved plan writer must sign the application form. If the land is owned by a business entity or group, an authorized representative of the entity or group must sign. An unsigned application is considered incomplete. By signing the application, you are attesting to the accuracy of the information provided. Criminal and/or civil penalties may apply for filing a false or fraudulent application.

Required Attachments You must attach the following to your application (all attachments must be clearly legible and accurate): • a copy of the recorded covenant(s), including Exhibits A and B, for each parcel of land you wish to enroll, • a copy of the Statement of Property Taxes for each qualifying parcel. • a copy of the forest management plan map or eligible acres map that clearly shows which acres are being enrolled and any excluded acres (or an aerial photo and/or map of the vegetation and other natural features of the land clearly indicating the boundaries of the land and of the forest land). Be sure to keep a copy of your application and all attachments for your records. You will need to refer to the parcel information in future years when you complete and sign your annual certification letter. The department will not be able to provide you with a copy. Annual Certification Letters By July 1 of every year, the department will send a certification letter to each enrolled participant. In the letter, you will be asked to: • sign attesting that the requirements and conditions for continued enrollment in the program are currently being met; • report any changes to the parcel information; and • return the signed certification by August 15 of that same year.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 226

Appendix G

If you properly complete and return the certification by August 15 of each year, you will receive your annual incentive payment on or before October 1 of the same year. If you fail to return the certification letter as required, you will not receive an incentive payment for that year.

How Payments are Determined Legislation passed in 2011 provides that the payment-per-acre for property enrolled in the SFIA program is $7 per acre and the annual payment per claimant cannot exceed $100,000. The amount each participant will receive is determined by multiplying the payment-per-acre ($7) by the number of enrolled acres. Please note: The payment you receive is taxable income. If you owe delinquent taxes on property not enrolled in SFIA – or if you owe criminal fines or a debt to a state or county agency – district court, qualifying hospital or public library, state law may require the department to apply your incentive payment to the amount you owe (including penalty and interest on the taxes). Your Social Security number may be used to identify you as the correct debtor. If your debt is less than your incentive payment, you will receive the difference.

Removal for Property Tax Delinquency on Enrolled Land If you owe delinquent property taxes on any enrolled land, your land will be removed immediately from the program. The department will notify you of the removal and you will have 60 days from the notice date in which to pay the delinquent taxes. If you pay the delinquent taxes within the 60-day period, your land will be reinstated without penalty. Lands terminated from the SFIA program due to delinquent property taxes are not entitled to any payments and are subject to removal penalties. The covenant will remain on the land for the remainder of the eight years.

Use of Information To enroll in the SFIA program, you must file Form TH1. All information on Form TH1, including your Social Security number, is required by M.S. 290C.04 to properly identify you and determine if you qualify to receive an incentive payment. If the information is not provided, your application may be delayed or denied. If you provide a phone number where you can be reached during the day, the department can save time if questions arise. Your Social Security number is private information and cannot be disclosed to others without your consent. Your federal or state ID number and date of birth are also private nonpublic information, but can be disclosed to county assessors for tax administration purposes and to county treasurers for purposes of Revenue Recapture. All other information is public.

Frequently Asked Questions If I have more than one parcel of land, do I record a separate covenant for each? Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 227

Appendix G

No, but you must record a covenant with each county in which your land is located. The covenant includes all your parcels in the county that will be enrolled in the SFIA program, even if the parcels are not contiguous. Once recorded, the county will assign a covenant recording number. Where do I find the covenant recording number? You can find the covenant recording number on the front page of your covenant after it is recorded by the county. What items must be included in the forest management plan? The plan must include the landowner’s goals for the property, the parcel identification number (PID), a legal description, an inventory of the forest cover types, a map of the vegetation and boundaries, the proposed future conditions, a calendar of management activities, and other information pertinent to the management of the forest. The DNR will work with the claimant and the plan writer to determine what is acceptable. Do I have to follow the plan to remain eligible for a payment? Yes. Each plan will include a calendar of management activities. To remain eligible for payment, you must follow the timetable to a reasonable degree. Can I enroll only a portion of the eligible acres included in the parcel? Yes, but if you want to enroll the remaining acres in the future, your county must first assign a new PID to the remaining acres. For example, if your parcel of land includes 100 eligible acres but you only want to enroll 75 acres at this time, you can. However, before you can enroll the remaining 25 eligible acres, your county must assign a new PID to the 25 acres. You cannot enroll additional acres using the same covenant and PID numbers of a parcel that is already enrolled. Do I have to own the land for the entire eight years? No. You may sell all or a portion of the parcel of land at any time during your enrollment, but the covenant remains in effect. This means the new owner must abide by the covenant. What types of land are not eligible? Land that is not eligible in SFIA includes: • residential land or agricultural land used for agricultural purposes, including pasture, hayfields and cropland. • land enrolled in RIM, CREP, CRP, Green Acres, Ag Preserves or the Rural Preserve Program. • land improved with such things as pavement, sewer, roads and campsites. Camping is allowed on SFIA enrolled land, as long as it does not alter the management of the surrounding area. • land with other improvements that are not required for forest management activities. • land enrolled in class 2c managed timberland. What improvements may be included? Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 228

Appendix G

A building or structure used exclusively for management activities may be included. An example would be a shed or building that only houses equipment used during management activities. If the building also is used as a temporary or permanent dwelling or is used for storage of items not regularly used for management purposes, the land must be excluded. If the parcel includes non-qualifying improvements, is the land still eligible? It depends. Any portion of a parcel of land that has improvements that are not necessary for sustainable forest management must be deducted from the plan’s total acres. The minimum deduction is three acres for each area excluded. After deductions for exclusions there must still be a minimum of 20 contiguous acres to be eligible. Note that after the minimum contiguous acres are met, additional tracts may be included in the same plan, even if they are not contiguous. What if I have non-forested land that is not used for agriculture? Open water, including rivers, that are less than three acres in size can be included as part of the forested land. Larger areas must be excluded. Marshes and other wetlands not capable of growing trees, but due to their existence have a significant impact on forested land, are eligible for SFIA. This also includes land that may have been an agricultural field in the past, but has recently been planted for reforestation. What happens if I decide to develop part or all of my enrolled land? Before you complete the covenant, exclude any area you might develop in the future. If you violate the covenant by developing or constructing improvements on any of your enrolled land, all of your land will be removed from the program and you will be assessed a penalty. The penalty is the total amount of payments you received on all of your land — not just the part in violation—for the previous four years, plus interest. Please note: The SFIA Covenant remains on the land. You cannot pay a penalty to remove the covenant. Are there any limitations on the number of acres? There is no maximum, but any owner enrolling greater than 1,920 acres must allow year-round, non-motorized public access to fish and wildlife resources, except in areas within one-quarter mile of a permanent dwelling or during periods of high fire danger. (High fire danger is determined by the DNR.) Can I decide after I’m enrolled to leave the program? All enrolled land must remain in the program for a minimum of eight years. You may choose to cancel enrollment from the program after four years by filing a written request with the Department of Revenue. Once filed, the cancellation will take effect January 1 of the fifth calendar year that begins after receipt by the commissioner of the termination notice. You will continue to receive incentive payments during the four-year waiting period. Once you withdraw, the land cannot be reenrolled in the program for at least three years. I have been notified that the land I am buying is enrolled in the SFIA program. Do I have to reenroll?

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 229

Appendix G

Yes. If you want to receive annual incentive payments, you must complete and submit an application, Form TH1. Keep in mind that even if you do not apply for payments, your land will remain in the program. Therefore, you must abide by the covenant and you cannot develop the land until it is withdrawn from the program. I purchased enrolled lands. Can I request to withdraw and still receive the incentive payment while waiting to be removed from the program? Yes. You need to complete an application Form TH1, and send in an intent to withdraw. You will receive payments until the land is released. I am the personal representative of an estate in which the decedent was enrolled in the SFIA program. Will the estate continue to receive payments? It depends if you chose to terminate or continue enrollment. You have up to one year to notify the department to either: • terminate without penalty—if you choose to terminate, we will issue a document releasing the land from the covenant—OR • continue enrollment in the SFIA program. If you choose to continue, you must submit a letter of explanation with a new application, Form TH1. If the new application is approved, the land is enrolled in the program without a break. If you do not notify the department within one year, the enrollment will terminate automatically without penalty. Can my land’s classification change? Yes. This is at the discretion of the county in which the land is located. In a timber program, your land’s classification would most likely change to timber. I recently purchased land already in SFIA. Who will receive the incentive payment for the upcoming year? This is a determination made between buyer and seller. It may be written in the purchase agreement. In the case of property sold or transferred, the former owner and the purchaser or grantee must determine between them which person is eligible to claim the payments provided under sections 290C.01 to 290C.11. The owners, transferees or grantees must notify the commissioner in writing which person is eligible to claim the payments. Can I remove just a portion of a parcel? No. The whole parcel must be removed. Should you decide to re-enroll the removed parcel, you will need to wait an additional three years to do so.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 230

Appendix H

Appendix H: Terms and Definitions

Land Management Terms Landscape Stewardship Plan: is one element of a landscape stewardship project. It is a multi-landowner Forest Stewardship Plan written to address landscape-level issues across all ownerships.

Landscape Stewardship: is an “all lands” approach to forest conservation that works across multiple ownerships to address issues and opportunities identified in each State’s Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy.

Landscape Stewardship Project: is a collaborative effort to achieve desired social, economic, and environmental objectives shared by the stakeholders through community and landowner engagement.

The Watershed: This plan is focused on the Root River Watershed and two focus areas within the watershed. From this point forth, the plan focus area will be referred to as “the Watershed”.

Forestland: Land which is at least ten percent stocked by trees of any size and capable of producing timber, or of exerting an influence on the climate or on the water regime; land from which the trees described above have been removed to less than ten percent stocking and which has not been developed for other use; and afforested areas. (Minnesota Statutes 2003, Chapter 89.)

Forest Management: The regeneration, management, utilization, and/or conservation of forests to meet specific goals and objectives (excerpt from the Dictionary of Forestry, Helms 1998).

Sustainable Forest Management: Development, protection, and use of forest resources for achievement of economic and social well- being without damaging the forest resource base or compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (MFRC “Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources: Voluntary Site Level Guidelines”.)

Ecological Classification System (ECS): The Ecological Classification System is part of a nationwide mapping initiative developed to improve the ability to manage all natural resources on a sustainable basis. It is a method to identify, describe, and map progressively smaller areas of land of increasingly uniform ecological characteristics. Associations of biotic and environmental factors that directly affect or indirectly express differences in energy, moisture, and nutrient supplies are used. These factors include climate, geology, soils, hydrology and vegetation. Four levels of mapping have been completed for Minnesota. From the largest to the smallest scale, these include province, section, subsection, and land type association.

Native Plant Community: A group of native plants that interact with each other and with their environment in ways not greatly altered by modern human activity or by introduced organisms. These groups of native plants form recognizable units that tend to repeat over

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 231

Appendix H

space and time. Native plant communities are classified and described by considering vegetation, hydrology, landforms, soils, and natural disturbance regimes. In 2005, the DNR completed the southeast version for classification of native plant communities, Minnesota's Native Plant Community Classification (Version 2.0), published in the book, Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province.

Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) modeling: A landscape scale assessment modeling process developed by the DNR to identify regionally significant habitat areas. The RSEA modeling process was designed to identify critical forestlands, wetlands, and grasslands. (DNR)

Forest Spatial Patterns: The size, shape and arrangement of forested landscape patches. Patches may be any feature that can be mapped such as (MN DNR): Forest types, habitats, and vegetation communities. Landforms, soils, and aquatic systems. Disturbances – both natural and human caused.

Spatial Analysis: The mapping and measuring of spatial patterns in a landscape or given area. (DNR)

Comprehensive Plan: The official public document adopted by a community as the policy guide for decisions about its future development and redevelopment. It consists of a vision for the community, background data, goals, policy statements, standards and programs for guiding the physical, social and economic development of a community. A comprehensive plan usually includes, but is not limited to, a land use plan, transportation plan, public facilities plan, housing plan, parks and open space plan, environmental protection plan and implementation strategies. The time frame for a plan typically ranges from 15 to 25 years. (MN Planning. “Under Construction: Tools and Techniques for Local Planning”.)

Fragmentation: Changes across a landscape that break large continuous areas of a particular land cover (e.g. forest) into smaller isolated patches. (Kilgore)

Parcelization: An increase in the number of land parcels in a given area (e.g. fragmentation of land ownership). Fragmentation does not necessarily result in parcelization and vice versa. (Kilgore)

Sense of Place: The common feeling or attitude people share about a community or place they identify with and relate to. A place with a “sense of community” is a place that naturally brings people together as a community. (MN Planning. “Under Construction: Tools and Techniques for Local Planning”.)

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 232

Appendix H

Planning Terms Desired Future Conditions: Desired Future Conditions (DFC) are broad overarching statements that describe preferred or desired conditions that a given geographic area or region will be like at the end of a given timeframe. DFC statements are very general and long range in nature. They are intended to provide an initial starting point for agreement on what forests in the landscape should be like in the future. DFCs are comparable in content to vision statements found in local government plans such as comprehensive plans. The DFC statements for the previously approved MFRC landscape plans have typically used a fifty to one hundred (50 – 100) year horizon when describing the desired future conditions of forests.

Goals: Goal statements outline the general directions that an organization intended to be attained at some point in the future. Goals are intended to provide general direction for a given resource initiative (ecological, economic, social, and administration/coordination). Words such as encourage, increase, preserve, and protect are commonly found in goal statements. The goals in the Root River Watershed Plan represent what the Committee wants to pursue over the next ten to twenty (10 – 20) years to promote sustainable forest resources in the landscape.

Objectives: Statements that provide more specific direction on the efforts or strategies that are needed to implement each goal. Goals usually have more than one objective. Words like construct, plant, remove, and monitor are used to describe more specific direction in implementing the goals. Often, objectives will include quantifiable targets, as means to provide more specific and measurable parameters for monitoring progress towards the goals. The initial description of programs and projects are usually found in objective statements.

Action Items: Statements that outline what an organization anticipates will be the major tasks in completing the objectives. Objectives should contain several action item statements to help further clarify efforts needed to complete the objectives.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 233

Appendix I

Appendix I: Bibliography for Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan, Pine Creek- Rushford Conservation Opportunity Area Plan, and Forestville Conservation Opportunity Area Plan

Alexander, E.C. 1993. The rise of the South Branch of the Root River. Unpublished paper, on file University of Minnesota Department of Earth Sciences, Minneapolis, MN.

Chapman, White, Huffman, Faber-Langendoen. 1993. Ecology and Stewardship Guidelines for Oak Barrens Landscapes in the Upper Midwest. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ecopage/upland/oak/oak93/chapman.html

Curtis-Wedge, Franklyn. 1919. The History of Houston County, Minnesota. H.C. Cooper, Jr. & Co. Winona, MN 1919.

Havlik, M.E. 2000. A 1998 mussel survey (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) on the South Branch of the Root River system, Southeastern Minnesota. Final report for Fillmore County Water Planning Office, Preston, Minnesota.

Houghton, D.C., R.W. Holzenthal, M.P. Monson, and D.B. MacLean. 2001. Updated Checklist of the Minnesota Caddisflies (Tricoptera) with Geographic Affinities. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 127 (4):495-512.

Jameson, R.A. and E. C. Alexander. 1995. The waters of Mystery Cave, Forestville State Park, Minnesota. Mystery Cave Resources Evaluation (Groundwater) technical report. Unpublished report, on file Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Kling, G.W., K. Hayhoe, L.B. Johnson, J.J. Magnuson, S. Polasky, S.K. Robinson, B.J. Shuter, M.M. Wander, D.J. Wuebbles, D.R. Zak, R.L. Lindroth, S.C. Moser, and M.L. Wilson. 2003. Confronting Climate Change and the Great Lakes Region: Impacts on our Communities and Ecosystems: Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Society of America, Washington, D.C., 105 p.

Lenhart and Nieber. 2011. Quantifying Differential Streamflow Response of Minnesota Ecoregions to Climate Change and Implications for Management. USGS State Water Resource Research Institute.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN.

Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 234

Appendix I

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Watershed Health Assessment Framework. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed_tool/index.html.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Silviculture Interpretations. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/ecs_silv/interpretations.html

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Rare Species Guide. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/filter_search.html.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2008. Root River Watershed Turbidity TMDL: Project overview.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2012. Root River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report.

Mossler, John. H. 1999. Geology of the Root River State Trail Area, Southeastern Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Educational Series 10

Mossler, John H. and Howard C. Hobbs. 1995. Geologic Atlas of Fillmore County, County Atlas Series C-8, Part A, Plate 4: Depth to bedrock and Bedrock Topography. Minnesota Geological Survey. Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Trout Unlimited. 2008. The Economic Impact of Recreational Trout Angling in the Driftless Area. Park Printing House, Ltd., Verona, WI.

Trow, Thomas. 1981. Surveying the Route of the Root: An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Southeastern Minnesota.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2011. Landscape Stewardship Guide.

United States Geological Survey. 2012. Hydrologic Map Units. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. Accessed 12/13/12.

United States Geological Survey. 2012. Midwest Paleozoic Carbonate Aquifers. Karst and the USGS. http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/. Accessed 1/17/2013.

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2003. Rare Species Fact Sheets. http://www.wvdnr.gov/Wildlife/Cerulean.shtm. Accessed 12/12/12. Root River Landscape Stewardship Plan 235